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: ALLEVIATION OF DROUGHT STRESS BY ROOT-APPLIED THIOUREA IS RELATED TO ELEVATED PHOTOSYNTHETIC PIGMENTS, OSMOPROTECTANTS, ANTIOXIDANT ENZYMES, AND TUBERS YIELD AND SUPPRESSED OXIDATIVE STRESS IN POTATOES CULTIVARS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. MS need throughout English language checking.
2. The introduction is very extensive.
3. The references are very large in numbers and they are not correctly written as journal guide lines.
4.The figures are good in quality and visibility
Experimental design: 1. Methodology and execute the experiment process is deprived. Data unwell interpreted and data presented in the manuscript about alleviation of drought stress by root-applied thiourea in potato are not having any new message about precise investigation.
 2. Authors should follow uniform trend for cv. potato-SH-5 and potato- FD.73-110.
3. The methodology of estimation of antioxidant enzyme activities, MDA content and chlorophyll is not clear in material methods section.
4. For estimating antioxidative enzyme, the author should provide clear information about that whether extraction is done once or separately for each enzyme.
5. The author has calculated the activities of SOD, CAT and POD in same units. It should be written as i.e. µmol.min-1.mg-1 protein for CAT and POD.
6. What is the reason for extracted leaf chlorophyll with 80 % methanol instead of DMSO or acetone method?
Validity of the findings: 1. The discussion is unwilling described by authors. The authors cited insufficient papers describing the effect of TU on potato and other crops. Several paper already describing the effect of plant bioregulaters under abiotic stress by
Nathawat et al. (2007), Biologia Plantarum 55 (1): 93-97;
Ramaswamy et al. (2007) Photosynthetica, 45 (3):477-480.;
Srivastava et al. (2008), Environmental Experimental Botany 64:250-255;
D’Souza et al. (2009) Acta Agronomica Hungarica 57(1): 21-31.
Nathawat et al. (2016), Experimental agriculture, 52(5): 418-433;
Nathawat et al.,(2018), Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., India, Sect. B Biol. Sci. 88: 875-885.
Nathawat et al. (2021), Legume Research, 44: 67-73 and  other workers. The effectiveness of TU and related compounds on crop plants should be cited in the manuscript. The discussion part of MS is tedious and inappropriate.
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: ALLEVIATION OF DROUGHT STRESS BY ROOT-APPLIED THIOUREA IS RELATED TO ELEVATED PHOTOSYNTHETIC PIGMENTS, OSMOPROTECTANTS, ANTIOXIDANT ENZYMES, AND TUBERS YIELD AND SUPPRESSED OXIDATIVE STRESS IN POTATOES CULTIVARS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
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: ALLEVIATION OF DROUGHT STRESS BY ROOT-APPLIED THIOUREA IS RELATED TO ELEVATED PHOTOSYNTHETIC PIGMENTS, OSMOPROTECTANTS, ANTIOXIDANT ENZYMES, AND TUBERS YIELD AND SUPPRESSED OXIDATIVE STRESS IN POTATOES CULTIVARS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No Comment
Experimental design: No Comment, very Good
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: THE SOFT TISSUE AND SKELETAL ANATOMY OF TWO LATE JURASSIC ICHTHYOSAUR SPECIMENS FROM THE SOLNHOFEN ARCHIPELAGO
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This MS on soft tissue preservation on two ichthyosaur specimens was a joy to review! I would like to congratulate the authors especially on the very clear explanation of the chemical terms and processes, which in other taphonomic description is often rather garbled.
Experimental design: sounds fine!
Validity of the findings: The authors are laudably cautious when interpreting their findings, but do not get hung up in unnecessary qualifications that would make the text confusing. Well done!
Additional comments: I noticed a few spelling errors and there are a handful of sentences that could be phrased a bit better. These very minor alterations can be made during the proofs stage.

Line 485 “these tissues” – which?
Line 491 – and?????? You’re implying something? Spell it out for the idiots!
Line 504 ff – you’re hurrying things here a bit. Phrase everything for the idiot who didn’t read the previous sections.


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: THE SOFT TISSUE AND SKELETAL ANATOMY OF TWO LATE JURASSIC ICHTHYOSAUR SPECIMENS FROM THE SOLNHOFEN ARCHIPELAGO
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I would like to praise the authors for their excellent study. Well done. I find the work to be well-presented, the material and approach adequately described, and the language clear and unambiguous. However, I feel that the manuscript could be made stronger with a little more description, including a section on taphonomy (focused on the skeletal anatomy), and with additional figures. Regarding these points, I have added more detailed comments into a marked-up version of the pdf.

As a result, I suggest minor revision.
Experimental design: As per above.
Validity of the findings: As per above. Please see additional suggestions on further descriptions and figures in the marked-up pdf.
Additional comments: N/A


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: THE SOFT TISSUE AND SKELETAL ANATOMY OF TWO LATE JURASSIC ICHTHYOSAUR SPECIMENS FROM THE SOLNHOFEN ARCHIPELAGO
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. The designation of different types of soft tissue is slightly unclear. For example, in line 398-399 you describe the types I and II as preservation types, whereas in line 358 you describe them as tissue types. In general, the same biological tissue may have different fossil preservation in different parts of a body, different individuals, different settings, etc. Similarly, different biological tissues may be preserved in the same type of fossil preservation. Please clarify throughout the paper if the tissue types are preservation types, or biological tissue types, or if in this case you interpret the each preservation type to correspond exactly to one biological tissue type.

2. You mention (e.g. in line 386) that several types of soft tissue are preserved, then describe only two of them. Please give a brief overview of the other types as well.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: 1. In line 494 you interpret the type II soft tissue as remnants of blubber, but I don't think you did any new analyses to support this, or to demonstrate conclusively that tissue type II in the fossil is composed of adipocere (as you mention in line 466 as a hypothesis for this). Please make sure your conclusions about tissue type II reflect that you are not presenting any new conclusive data about the identification of this.
Additional comments: All-in-all this is an excellent paper! I have no expertise to judge the taxonomic components, but the taphonomic components are well-conceived, well-executed, and well-reported.


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 BASAL ICHTHYOSAUROMORPH FROM THE LOWER TRIASSIC (OLENEKIAN) OF ZHEBAO, GUANGXI AUTONOMOUS REGION, SOUTH CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The first and foremost suggestion that I have is that the article is thoroughly checked by a native (preferrably two) English speaker with a geological/palaeontological background. I am not one myself, but I have encountered multiple, largely minor, but also many major issues with the use of the English language throughout the entire article. I have marked them only in the abstract, because there are so many mistakes that it is futile to try and correct everything at the current state of the MS. I would have to re-write it basically. The article would greatly benefit from such an improvement, which can be easily achieved. I consider this mandatory before re-submission.

Concerning literature references I would strongly suggest to include pertinent information about the biostratigraphy of the Luolou Formation, which is available concerning both ammonite and conodont zonation. The authors provide an absolute date published recently by Xiang et al. (2020). That is fine, but in order to compare the specimen to other lower Triassic marine reptiles it is not very helpful. Biostratigraphic data would be much more relevant, and the available recent literature should be cited. I Would also like to know more about the general fanual composition of the formation, at least some cornerstone data, to get an idea if and to what extent the paleoecosystem differs from, e.g. that of the coeval Nanlinghu Formation of Anhui, which so far has yielded the huge majority of early Triassic ichthyosauriform finds from China.

The structure of the article is basically fine, but it is at times close to unreadable due to the very poor English.

The article is, of course, self-contained, as it describes a single new fossil specimen of a (presumed) ichthyosaur from a locality where such fossils were hitherto unknown (but, of course, quite expectable considering the facies and age of the formation). Its main hypothesis is that the new find indiactes the presence of a hitherto unknown, moderately large growing Lower Triassic ichthyosaur. I consider the arguments provided by the authors for an ichthyosaurian identification insufficient, as pointed out more clearly below. They have to do a lot of work to improve that.
Experimental design: The article certainly represents a piece of original primary reserach. The fossil specimen described has never been published before and it fills a gap in the fossil record of marine reptiles from China. It also indicates the possible presence of a hitherto unrecognized taxon, but this is far from certain.

The research question is basically the description, taxonomic allocation and comparison of the new fossil find to already known taxa of early Triassic ichthyosauriforms. I consider that the authors have failed in three major points:

1. The identification of the specimen as an "ichthyosaur" rests solely on symplesiomophies (amphicoelous vertebrae, synapophyseal rib articulation etc.) which are shared by a number of other Triassic marine reptile taxa, such as more basal Ichthyopterygians and ichtyosaurifroms, hupehsuchids, thalattosaurs etc. The authors do not identify a single apomorphic character which links their fossil exclusively to ichthyosaurs, or at least any particular ichthyosaurian taxon.
I particulary do not understand why they insist on it being an ichthyosaur. There are different usages of the "Ichthyosauria" in the literature. I, e.g., consider froms such as Utatsusaurus and Chaohusaurus as "ichthyosaurs" and see no reason for further subdivsion. That is a minority report, however. Most authors follow the nomenclature proposed by Motani and co-workers, where the Ichthyosauria is basically restricted to cymbospondylids, mixosaurids and shastasaur-grade ichthyosaurs and the euichthyosaurs among Triassic forms, whereas more basal taxa, down to the hupehsuchians, are classified as ichthyoptergians, ichthyosauriforms and ichthyosauromorphs.
It appears highly unlikely that the animal described is a cymbospondylid, mixosaurid, shastasaur or euichthyosaur. It should teherfore be best identified as an "ichthyosauromorph" until a more detailed, apomorphy-based identification can be provided.
To amend this I strongly suggest that the authors do a more detailed comparison of their find not only to ichthyopterygians, but also to other Triassic marine reptiles and try to find synapomorphic features which provide a better basis for their identification. It will then also be possible to find support for a placement of the specimen in Ichthyosauromorpha, Ichthyosauriformes or maybe Ichthyopterygia (quite certainly, however, not Ichthyosauria, as it does not show a single ichthyosaurian character (in the sense of Motani and co-workers) as far as I can judge it from the description and illustrations)

2. The anatomical identifications are not without doubt. I have raised suspicions that the femur, upon which a lot of the discussion and comparison provided by the authors rests, is probably another element. This is indicated by morphology, particularly the apparent  lack of a well-defined caput femoris. Instead the proximal portion of the femur is a completely flattened plate, even though the specimen, as seen from the three-dimensional vertebrae an neural arches, is almost uncompressed otherwise. It also is slightly indicated by taphonomy, It would be surprising to find a hind limb element when the rest of the skeleton is clearly from the anterior region of the body.
I consider the identification as a radius at least as viable as the identification as a femur Again the authors have to do more comparative work to other early ichthyosauriforms and Triassic marine reptiles, including not only the femur but also the zeugopodial elements of the fore- and hind fins. The bone is certainly not a humerus, and I also cannot place it in the shoulder or pelvic girdle of any marine reptile, but the hypothesis that it is a zeugopodial element instead of a femur is not excluded by any of the arguments they provide. Double articulations at the distal end are not exclusive to the femur.
I also have the strong suspicion that something went wrong in the description of the neural arches. What the authors identify as "paired posterior processes" halfway up the posterior margin of the neural arch are, in my opinion, simply the paired postzygapophyses. What they label as postzygapophysis must be some other structure. It could be a well-developed hyposphene. If the animal had a hyposphene-hypantrum articulation, this would greatly affect both its anatomy and the potential taxonomic dentifications. It is mandatory that this question is addressed and sufficiently clarified by the authors.

3. There is no detailed comparison to Sclerocormus parviceps Jiang et al. 2016, which is from the Lower Triassic  (Nanlinghu Formation, Spathian, Olenekian) of Anhui. The type skeleton is about 1.5 meters long, so it is the only Lower Triassic ichthosauiform form China currently named and described that at least comes close in size to the new find. Also it is geographically and stratigraphically very close. Also comparison is too limited to the equally roughly coeval and geographically close hupehsuchids, which show considerable similarities to ichthyosaurs in many features of their postcranial skeleton and have been classified by the team around Prof. Motani and Prof. Jiang as ichthyosauromorphs, probably correctly so.

I consider the investigations carried out by the authors as generally of good quality. they try to give a very deteiled anatomical description, provide detailed mesurements of the skeletal elements and even performed a paleohistological investigation on the specimen. They have certainly tried their best to squeeze out as much relevant information as such an imperfect and disarticulated specimen can offer. I see no ethical problems whatsoever, They have completely adhered to all scientific ethical standards.

The methods of the authors are basically standard methods of descriptive systematic palaeontology, and these are competently used.
Validity of the findings: The paper offers the description of a novel fossil from an as yet "white spot" on the map, at least regarding ichtyhosaurs and their close relatives. Findings of these animals from the early Triassic are rare worldwide and restricted to a limited number of localities, so any substantial addition to their fossil record is welcome. The specimen is well preserved, although incomplete, and described in considerable detail with good figures. I reckon that the study will be cited by experts in the field (students of Triassic marine reptiles, particularly ichthyosaurs and related forms) and probably also by students of local geology and paleontology.

The underlying data have been provided to the author's best ablities. The specimen is documented by good photographic illustrations and informative drawings, they have provided detailed measurements of the relevant skeletal elements, documented the paleohistological sections with good color photograhs and also have documented the geographic and stratigraphic provenance of the find adeuqately (although, as pointed out above, biostratigraphic data need to be addressed in more detail and with additional references).

The authors provide logical and coherent conclusions. My concerns are rather with the basic assumptions (i.e. that the fossil represents an "ichthyosaur", which in the stricts sense of Motani and co-workers it certainly doesn't. Even that it is an ichthyosauromorph is, in my opinion, not adequately supported by the available data, or at least the authors failed to provide sufficent evidence to support their premises.

The article does not indugle into speculation of any kind. That is always welcome, particularly when dealing with incomplete fossil specimens as the one under consideration.
Additional comments: Daer authors

I congratulate you on your findings. But please consider the following:

1. Please let your MS be checked by one or preferrably two native English speakers or colleagues with outstanding knowledge of the English language. They should also be familiar with geology and paleontology, because I have made the experience that native speakers not familiar with the topics tend to introduce more mistakes into a text than they help to eliminate. In its present state the MS is unacceptable to any international journal particularly because it fails to meet the language standards. This can easily be amended by the kind help of one or two colleagues.

2. Please provide a better justification for the identification of the material. I do not consdider it to be an ichthyosaur, at least not in the sense Ichthyosauria has been used in recent years by the majority of students. It may be an ichthyosaur in the sense of my own studies, but these are not the current cladistic consensus. You even do not provide sufficent evidence that the specimen is an ichthyosauromorph (sensu Jiang, Motani and co-workers), i-e. belongs to the clade of hupehsuchians and ichthyosauriforms. The features that you cite to support your identification are symplesiomorphies, even shared with totally different marine reptiles such as thalattosaurs (amphicoelous vertebrae, synapophyseal rib articulation etc.). Please extend your comparisons and try to identify apomorphic features that link your specimen to ichthyosauromorpha or one of its subclades.

3. Re-consider your identification of the femur. it may be one, but i have problems, particularly as I cannot see any indication of a caput femoris (the articular head of the femur which should form a functonal joint with the acetabulum). Your sepcimen appears to be little diagenetically compressed, the vertebrae and neural arches being almost 3D in preservation. The "femur" however is a completely flattened, plate-like bone. i would suggest such a morphology to be found rather in a zeugopodial limb element (radius/ulna or tibia/fibula) than in a stylopodial one (humerus/femur). You should extend comaprison to ther limb elements of basal ichthyosauromorphs and maybe additional marine reptiles, because I also think you may not be right concerning the morphology of the neural arches.
I suggest that your "posterior paired process" of the neural arch is the postzygapophyses, still paired, as usual in basal ichthyosauromorphs. What you label as postzygapophysis appears to be a triangular posterior process that is very reminiscent of the accessory intervertebral articulations found in some non-ichthyosauromorph marine (and many other) reptiles. It suggests the presence of a functional hyposphene-hypantrum articulation in your animal. The potential taxonomic implications of this are far-reaching, and you need to address this question in detail.

4. Please provide additional comparative data on Sclerocormus parviceps in particular, which is the only other large-growing ichthyosauriform currently described from the same general area and stratigraphic level. Also compare more closely to hupehsuchians and, if the hyposphene-hypantrum hypothesis I formulated above should play out, also to non-ichthyosauromorph marine reptiles.

5. Please provide some additonal data on the fossil content, possible paleoecology and particularly the biostratigraphy of the Luolou Formation. There are studies on ammonites and conodonts, and it should be possible to give precise biostratigraphic data for the specimen. Please provide these, as well as the important references. This will geratly facilitate biochronological comparison to other early Triassic marine reptile finds and localities worldwide.

With best regards

Michael W. Maisch


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 BASAL ICHTHYOSAUROMORPH FROM THE LOWER TRIASSIC (OLENEKIAN) OF ZHEBAO, GUANGXI AUTONOMOUS REGION, SOUTH CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This is a very interesting and important find.
However, I am not sure if the identification ofthe long bone lement as femur is correct and the histological study performed is not suitable to give an appropriate age estimation (also there is morphological evidence for an early ontogenetic stage/not fully grown individual).
The engl. neds some improvement some formulations read strange and authors mixed Singular and Plural...
Sincerely
NK
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment/see above basic reporting
Additional comments: see above basic reporting and attached pdf


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 BASAL ICHTHYOSAUROMORPH FROM THE LOWER TRIASSIC (OLENEKIAN) OF ZHEBAO, GUANGXI AUTONOMOUS REGION, SOUTH CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors addressed most of the issues I had pointed out accordingly, except for the histological part.
The authors state that they had discard the part of age estimation but already in the abstract they state:
“The specimen was not fully grown at the time of death, based on the bone histology of a dorsal rib.”

In line 156 they wrote:
 “to assess the growth stage the ichthyosauromorph had reached at the time of death.”

Based on the sample they have (distal part of a likley largely cartilaginous rib) they cannot say anything about age (see Klein et al. 2019; ref. given in the 1st review) and they should delete/rephrase this.
As pointed out in the 1st round, I agree that the specimen was not fully grown but by refering to morphology and not histology.

In Fig. legend 5 they should delet inner (inner cortex), this is far from inner cortex.
Except for this I have no other concerns.
Experimental design: no comment
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: A NEW BASAL ICHTHYOSAUROMORPH FROM THE LOWER TRIASSIC (OLENEKIAN) OF ZHEBAO, GUANGXI AUTONOMOUS REGION, SOUTH CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Dear editor and authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. Early Triassic marine reptiles are both interesting and important. The fossil presented here is no doubt an interesting fossil with a good preservation from an important time slice.

My major concern and the reason for recommending a rejection of the manuscript in its present state, is that I do not believe that the taxonomic conclusion is correct: this is likely not an ichthyosauriform or ichthyosaur. The fossil is presented as an ichthyosauromorph (the more inclusive group, also including hupehsuchians), and I cannot rule out the possibility that this is a hupehsuchian. However, the entire framing of the paper, the discussion and context (as well as the species list) places this fossil closest to the ichthyosaurs, which I strongly doubt. I agree there are some similarities with Sclerocormus parviceps, but also with sauropterygians and hupehsuchians. It might also be necessary to consider additional reptile groups.

Because I think the entire framing of the fossil is based on an incorrect taxonomic placement, I will not comment upon details in the manuscript, as it will have to be rewritten completely after it has been made clear what the specimen actually is. With regard to the text on ichthyosaurs, there are several mistakes and sentences that need clarification and references to the newest literature.
My main reasons for not believing this is an ichthyosaur or close relative:
-	The vertebrae are relatively long compared to height, compared to ichthyosaurs, where they are a lot anteroposteriorly shorter, including the earliest taxa from China. I suggest calculating the relationships between height, length and width for comparison to different groups.
-	The limb bone differs from other, known ichthyosaur limb bones. I acknowledge the discussion about this element, and it might be an ulna or radius, but it likely belong to a different animal group altogether.
-	The ribs and neural arches are also not very typical of ichthyosaurs and close relatives.
Experimental design: In order to present the fossil as an ichthyosauromorph, the authors would need to build a much stronger case, based on cladistics characters and recent phylogenies. The characters given in the manuscript for inclusion within Ichthyosauromorpha are not those given in Motani et al 2015 defining the clade, nor do they refer to any other paper revising the entire group. The most recent full phylogenetic analysis of ichthyosaurs, Moon 2017, is not referred, nor is a paper citing the amphicoelous vertebrae as a defining feature (this could have been Sander 2000). Single similarities to specific ichthyosaur/ possible ichthyosaur taxa eg Omphaloasurus and Grippia do not build an argument for inclusion in ichthyosauromorphs. Huang et al 2019 is a very interesting paper, but they do not provide a character-based definition of Ichthyosauromorpha, and should not be used as such.

I appreciate the combination of outer skeletal anatomy and inner bone microstructure, but there is not sufficient knowledge about this to be used as characters for placing the specimen in a given clade. Similarities to Omphalosaurus or Mixosaurus in the microstructure mentioned in the paper are features shared widely in many vertebrates, and should at the present not be used to draw taxonomic conclusions.

I also think the pictures of the histological sections of the fossils should be improved, and a discussion is lacking on whether the large, internal cavity might actually result from decomposition rather than being an actual feature.
Validity of the findings: See comments above.
Additional comments: As I think the fossil needs to be reanalyzed again for correct taxonomical placement, I do not comment on all of the text in this manuscript. However, I want to make a note on the material from Spitsbergen, which is something I have worked on. The reference Roaldset 2017 is a Master thesis, meaning it is not peer-reviewed. I strongly recommend instead to refer to Engelschiøn et al 2018: Large-sized ichthyosaurs from the Lower Saurian niveau of the Vikinghøgda Formation (Early Triassic), Marmierfjellet, Spitsbergen in Norwegian Journal of Geology, as it is a far more comprehensive and correct discussion of the taxa from Spitsbergen.


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 BASAL ICHTHYOSAUROMORPH FROM THE LOWER TRIASSIC (OLENEKIAN) OF ZHEBAO, GUANGXI AUTONOMOUS REGION, SOUTH CHINA
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Basic reporting

Dear editors and authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript for a second time. The article has gone through a substantial change since the previous round of review, and significantly improved.

My major concern in the previous review was the taxonomic placement of the new specimen. I am happy to see that this has been taken seriously in the new version of the manuscript. I am still not 100% convinced that this is an ichthyosauromorph, but I find that the authors have explored the question thoroughly. I very much appreciate the work on the vertebral ratios, however it should be pointed out that the values for the new specimen might just as well belong to a sauropterygian, judging from the plot, so this should be mentioned.

Specific comments:
Introduction:
-	Please have a second look at the paragraph about the Spitsbergen material. There are some inconsistencies, especially with regard to Pessopteryx

Geological setting
-	I suggest making a separate heading for Geological setting, as is often done for this type of papers (but this is really up to the editor/ journal style)
-	Mention clearly that this is a marine setting
-	I would also recommend adding an age in Mya for the specimen, in addition to the late Spathian age, if that is available

Material and methods
-	A section on the rationale and method behind the calculation on vertebral ratios is missing. This should also include (possibly in the supplementary) a list on the specimens used in this analysis

Description
-	I miss comparisons to other taxa in the first two paragraphs of the section, on the morphology of the vertebrae
-	In the paragraph on neural arches, please state clearly that they are separate from the centra
-	In all “personal observation”, please add a specimen number
-	Numbers for vertebral ratios are given with two decimals, which I think are too many with regard to how detailed measurements are possible in such cases
-	As mentioned above, the ratio for the centra of the new specimens are not only close to ichthyosauromorphs in the plot, but also sauropterygians. This should be mentioned. You could also consider doing a statistical analysis to put a number on this. In any case, I suggest removing the trend lines for each group.
-	Gastralia: I appreciate the figure for gastralia in other taxa. It should be referenced in the text on gastralia
-	Radius; the sentence beginning with “Most early ichthyosauromorphs”, please add taxon names and reference

Discussion
-	Please add a discussion on the most recent diagnosis for the clade Ichthyosauromorpha, also if there might be need for a revision of this
-	I also suggest stating why it is chosen to erect a new genus and species based on what is mainly vertebral remains (no skull and only one limb element) – this is not always adviced, so I suggest explaining more clearly why you see this as the right thing to do here
Experimental design: see pt 1
Validity of the findings: see pt 1
Additional comments: see pt 1


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: BURDEN OF COVID-19: A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS IN THE POPULATION OF SAUDI ARABIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: To estimate the disease burden, the DALY is perhaps one of the most reasonable indicators. Therefore, I agree with the focus point of the authors in the manuscript. However, there are many points to be improved and explained. First of all, all abbreviations must be fully described before they are used (e.g., MOH). The number of digits should be consistent in the manuscript, especially in the result section. Some bold and italic expressions are unformal; therefore, I would like the authors to send the manuscript to an English editing service. The main aim of the manuscript is to estimate DALYs by age groups in Saudi Arabia; however, I do not understand the relationship between other measures like infection rate and DALYs, and those points are not explained in the discussion well. Also, although positive rate, infection rate and mortality are analyzed in the study, they are quite influenced by the time of epidemic but the authors tried to discuss using only point estimates of them without any uncertainties. Overall, the manuscript may not meet the standards of the journal.
Experimental design: The DALYs are calculated using 2988 samples from all confirmed COVID-19 cases if I correctly read the manuscript. However, I am confused about calculating the positive rate, infection rate, mortality, and CFR. Are they calculated from 2988 samples or all cases? In addition, were those indicators adjusted by age?
I would like the authors to explain the sampling process more clearly; otherwise, the readers may lose the critical points.
I do not follow the explanation of 2.2 descriptive analysis. For example, is the positive rate the total number? Please correctly describe each measure, also use the formula if you want.
If the authors estimate CFR using the latest datasets, the time delay between infection (confirmation) and death is not considered. In this case, CFR could be underestimated. Would you please describe this point somewhere or tackle this?
The relative risk for what? (many sentences are very vague)?
In the manuscript, mortality and CFR were mixed and misused. For example, table 2 shows RR of mortality, but the table shows CFR. Are they the same?
Figure 1 and 2 could be improved if the authors add the uncertainties (confidence intervals). In figure 2, the difference in mortality between cities is more important than proportion.
The details of the age groups are not described in the manuscript. Would the authors please explain that in the method?
I think 2.3 should be in the result.
L192. What are two variables?
Validity of the findings: In table 2, CFRs appeared to be smaller, especially older people, compared with other countries. How reliable are estimated values? Is that because of the underreported deaths due to COVID-19? In addition, confidence intervals do not seem to match with CFRs.
I do not understand what risk outcome stands for.
What do the authors think the impact of COVID-19 vaccines on the result?
Considering the many indicators (e.g., mortality), they must be influenced by the epidemic and vaccination progress in the population. Therefore, I would like to suggest that this point be tackled in the discussion.
What is the significance level of two-tailed t test in table3? Are they different from p-values?
As mentioned earlier, transmission dynamics are changed according to each stage of the epidemic. Therefore, it may be precarious to estimate DALYs using the entire epidemic without uncertainty. Rather than that, it would be good to show them different epidemic stages.
Additional comments: I would recommend that the details of the study period be explained in the abstract.


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: BURDEN OF COVID-19: A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS IN THE POPULATION OF SAUDI ARABIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper reports the results of a descriptive study of several measures of the burden associated with the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia.

On the whole, the article is written lucidly and the quality of written English is fair. Literature references have been provided for most of the assertions made in the text; however, the quality of the provided figure (Figure 1) is suboptimal in terms of resolution, background and captioning and does not add much to the text (as it simply repeats the raw values of three COVID-19 indices which are not in any way directly comparable).

The introduction would benefit from a greater depth of coverage of the various measures used to assess the burden of COVID-19 at a regional and national level and their strengths and limitations. The authors could also provide some background information on the government response to COVID-19, public adherence to the same, and how effective this response may have been in curtailing the spread of the disease.

The authors could also consider using a more visually informative illustration, such as a coloured or shaded map, to indicate the number / prevalence / fatality rates and DALY for COVID-19 in different regions of the country.
Experimental design: The authors have used a variety of indices to capture various aspects of the burden of COVID-19. In their estimation of disability-adjusted life years (DALY), they claim to have used a value derived from earlier literature and have cited a reference for this (no. 9); however, the concerned paper does not contain any guideline value with which DALY could be calculated. A correct citation along with more explicit details of the calculation should be provided, as this is one of the novelties of the current research.

The authors have mentioned collecting COVID-19 data from official governmental web sites. What was the degree of agreement between the different sources cited by them? Were the figures obtained consistent with those available on international data aggregators (e.g. the Johns Hopkins Medical University resource centre / dashboard for COVID-19?) This could be valuable in terms of ensuring the validity of this data.

The authors have examined the relationship of age with mortality. Though their method of data collection necessarily precludes the collection of more specific individual-level information (such as comorbid medical conditions or obesity) it would be useful if the authors could assess the relationship between gender and mortality, which has been documented in several other countries and regions. (If this data is not available, this should be acknowledged as a limitation).
Validity of the findings: As mentioned above, the authors should provide clearer details of the calculation of DALY, as this is the only novel measure in this current study and the citation provided appears to be incorrect.

The results are somewhat simplistic in nature (being largely descriptive) and no inferential analysis was carried out other than a possible correlation between age and mortality.

Further, it is not clear how the correlation between age and mortality was carried out. The authors have referred to Pearson's test in section 2.5, but have presented their results in ordinal age blocks (from 0-9 to >70) for which Pearson's test would not be appropriate (a Spearman rank correlation or other nonparametric method would be advisable in this case).

The discussion of the renin-angiotensin system and of medical comorbidities in Section 4 is somewhat tangential to the current paper (where these parameters have not been assessed) and can be shortened or deleted.

The authors have made the assertion that their results are comparable to those of "well-managed" countries. Is there any objective standard (for example, a statistical comparison of COVID indices, or guidelines provided by the WHO) of what would constitute "well-managed"? If not, this statement can be replaced with a more balanced assertion, such as "this rate was similar to those seen in countries with lower mortality rates" or "this rate was n standard deviations below the global average mortality rate".

The conclusion merely restates the key findings of the study. Instead, it should highlight the public health significance of the findings reports and their future implication, and should also acknowledge that DALYs may need to be recalculated in future given the phenomenon of "long COVID" being reported from other countries.
Additional comments: None.


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: BURDEN OF COVID-19: A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS IN THE POPULATION OF SAUDI ARABIA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Thank you for tackling my comments. However, there are still many concerns in the manuscript.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: - Please consider adding the uncertainty of each outcome in table 1.
- Please add the uncertainties in the abstract, for instance, positive rate.
- What do the values inside the parentheses concerning mortality represent in the abstract?
- Although I pointed out the concern about the delay between infection and death in the previous review, the authors did not mention it. Therefore, please discuss the impact of the estimation of CFR in real-time. Estimated CFR may be underestimated due to the delay in reporting deaths.
- The authors cited the paper written by Jo et al. (2020) to calculate the confidence interval. Unfortunately, I did not find a detailed calculation of the confidence interval in that paper. Please describe how the authors estimated the 95% CIs.
- Please add legends in all figures (e.g., explanation of error bars).
- Please consider showing the number of each age group in the method part or table.
- In the manuscript, I am confused about “mortality” and “mortality rate”. Please clarify the difference between both of them if they are used peculiarly.
- To my understanding, mortality is commonly represented as rate. I am afraid that figure 2 may be incorrect because Y-axis seems strange.
- Please check 95% CIs in table2 because they are not matched with estimated CFR (maybe %?).
- The authors discuss the estimated CFR by age group using the paper written by Cao Y et al. from L296. However, it does not make sense because CFR among a particular age group is compared with that adjusted by age, 3.31%. In this case, the authors should estimate CFR in Saudi Arabia adjusted by age because CFR is highly influenced by age. Also, the authors mentioned the impact of vaccination on the population, so they need to consider the difference of periods. The reason that I was concerned about the reliability of the data last review was CFR among older people appeared to be lower than that in other countries. Considering the vaccination in Saudi Arabia, the result may be reasonable. However, I am afraid I have to disagree that the authors argue that the estimated CFRs are reasonable when comparing CFR among certain age groups with CFR adjusted by age.
- Please estimate the age-adjusted positive rate, infection rate and mortality rate. If the authors could not, please mention this as one of the limitations.
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: BURDEN OF COVID-19: A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS IN THE POPULATION OF SAUDI ARABIA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have incorporated the suggestions made in the earlier review regarding providing a clearer background for this study.
Experimental design: Clarifications regarding methodology have been provided. These were verified and found acceptable.
Validity of the findings: In view of the clarifications provided by the authors above (see #2), I have no concerns about the findings in this area.
Additional comments: None.


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: BURDEN OF COVID-19: A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS IN THE POPULATION OF SAUDI ARABIA
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Thank you for addressing my comments on the manuscript; I think it was well revised and easy to follow the contents.
Experimental design: no comment
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: SOIL METABOLOMICS AND BACTERIAL FUNCTIONAL TRAITS REVEALED THE RESPONSES OF RHIZOSPHERE SOIL BACTERIAL COMMUNITY TO LONG-TERM CONTINUOUS CROPPING OF TIBETAN BARLEY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is well written in English and the reading is clear, unambiguous with technically correct text. Besides, the manuscript includes professional standards of courtesy and expression.

I consider that introduction and background is sufficient to demonstrate how the work fits into the broader field of knowledge and include appropriate and relevant literature of the field.

Figures and Tables are relevant to the content of the article with sufficient resolution and content. However, I have these questions/suggestions:
-	Table 1 (line 217): Does the data fulfill ANOVA assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance? I suggest to use Kruskal-Wallis test instead of ANOVA for alpha diversity indices.
-	Figure S2: please identify in the text what is A and B, in order to appropriately describe and label the figure.

The structure of the article follows an acceptable format and all appropriate raw data have been made available in NCBI-SRA.
Experimental design: Here, I expose my manuscript suggestions:

line 120: could you specify the dimension of each plot? could you clarify the total samples collected?  Did you collect 15 rhizosphere samples from each plot or from each five sites within a plot? The sampling procedure and the number of samples you have is a bit confusing, please clarify it by indicating the total sample you have and how they are distributed within each plot.

line 133: despite referring a previous work from Yang et al. 2019, I suggest to indicate briefly the process you followed for PCR amplification and purification.

line 134: what chemistry did you use for MiSeq sequencing? paired-end? single end? V3; 2x300 pb? please indicate it.

line 137: if you have 15 rhizosphere samples, why did you select 12 for the different analyses performed?

line 184: did you consider additional quality steps to depurate more accurately the raw reads obtained?

line 191: if you considered Faith’s phylogenetic diversity in alpha diversity indices, why did you not considered Weighted or Unweighted UniFrac distances in beta diversity?

line 199: Did you build the network with the total ASVs obtained? I recommend to apply a prevalence to build a robust network. Besides, when you analyze a co-ocurrence network you need to consider other correlations apart from Spearman, as well as you have to determine similarities and distances values as you can see in the Figure 1 of the manuscript by Faust et al., 2012 (Microbial Co-occurrence Relationships in the Human Microbiome).
Validity of the findings: I would like to congrats the authors for this comprehensive work and I would like to highlight that this study provides new insights about the interaction of soil metabolomics and bacterial functional traits in the rhizosphere soil bacterial community to long-term continuous cropping of Tibetan barley. Besides, the authors include a wide range of relevant analyses, such as network associations between microbiota and metabolisim that result very interesting to dig deeper in future experiments.
Additional comments: Please, check and rewrite the name of the genera in italics within the manuscript.

I suggest taking into account fungal communities in future experiments to understand their role in soil rhizosphere with similar analysis you performed.

Finally, I recommend to select larger samples to provide more conclusive results in future experiments because the results may be biased by the low number of replicates you selected.


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: SOIL METABOLOMICS AND BACTERIAL FUNCTIONAL TRAITS REVEALED THE RESPONSES OF RHIZOSPHERE SOIL BACTERIAL COMMUNITY TO LONG-TERM CONTINUOUS CROPPING OF TIBETAN BARLEY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Continuous cropping seriously affects crop yield. The authors analyzed the bacterial composition, microbial functional traits and soil metabolites of the rhizosphere soil collected from continuously cropped Tibetan barley for 2, 5, and 10 years. I feel this paper have important significance on barley continuous cropping.
Experimental design: he authors described 15 rhizosphere soil samples were collected in Line 122, but in Line137, twelve rhizosphere soil samples were collected. Please check it.
Validity of the findings: The Chao1, ACE, and PD indices were all significantly higher in CCY02 and CCY10 compared with CCY05. This result seems unreasonable. It means that soil condition will become better when continu-ous mono-cropping years is more than 10 years?
Additional comments: 1. In Abstract section: “samples from the same mono-cropped year”. The meaning of this sentence is not clear. “continuous momo-cropping year” may be better understood.
2. Line 363: Soil bacterial diversity may significantly decrease, have no change, or fluctuate after long-term continuous cropping. I think this sentence has something wrong. In general, soil bacterial diversity was decreased with the increase of continuous mono-cropping years. No change is extremely unlikely to happen. If this description was quoted from the reference, the result of this reference is questionable.


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: SOIL METABOLOMICS AND BACTERIAL FUNCTIONAL TRAITS REVEALED THE RESPONSES OF RHIZOSPHERE SOIL BACTERIAL COMMUNITY TO LONG-TERM CONTINUOUS CROPPING OF TIBETAN BARLEY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In my opinion, I consider the manuscript can be published in PeerJ.
Experimental design: The authors have made the revisions to the manuscript and they addressed all my concerns and suggestions.
Validity of the findings: This study provides new insights about the interaction of soil metabolomics and bacterial functional traits in the rhizosphere soil bacterial community to long-term continuous cropping of Tibetan barley.
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: SOIL METABOLOMICS AND BACTERIAL FUNCTIONAL TRAITS REVEALED THE RESPONSES OF RHIZOSPHERE SOIL BACTERIAL COMMUNITY TO LONG-TERM CONTINUOUS CROPPING OF TIBETAN BARLEY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
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: PHYSICAL AND FUNCTIONAL PROPERTIES OF FISH GELATIN-BASED FILM INCORPORATED WITH MANGROVE EXTRACTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The manuscript by Rahmi Nurdiani et al, deals Characterization of fish gelatin-based film incorporated with mangrove extracts and determination of its Physical and functional properties. In my opinion, the paper is well written and contributes to the existing knowledge. The following points may be considered while revising the article:

1.	The manuscript needs to be edited for its English.
2.	Abstract should be included numerical results.
3.	What is the best reported for antibacterial activities of fish gelatin-based film incorporated with mangrove extracts by other methods and what are the main cause for introducing mangrove extracts as an effective incorporated materials? For that purpose, the authors can make new table for comparison with other studies with discussion 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: PHYSICAL AND FUNCTIONAL PROPERTIES OF FISH GELATIN-BASED FILM INCORPORATED WITH MANGROVE EXTRACTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In the manuscript “Physical and functional properties of fish gelatinbased film incorporated with mangrove extracts", the authors aimed to create a fish gelatin-based edible film enriched with mangrove extracts and observe its mechanical and biological properties. The work has been carried out carefully, using the relevant experimental method. However, there are still some concerns needing to be addressed before I can recommend publication of this paper in PeerJ:

1.	Some type errors should be carefully checked and avoided in the whole manuscript and English writing should be improved for better understand.
2.	All references should be prepared according to publication manual of the PeerJ.
Experimental design: 3.	In experimental section,  methods should be described with sufficient information.
Validity of the findings: 4.	In discussion section, it would be necessary to compare this result with other fish gelatin-based edible film published previously.
Additional comments: 5.	Why B. gymnorhiza and S. alba were selected as candidates of active compounds inserted into fish gelatin films? It should be discussed in the Introduction.
6.	In my opinion, the characterization of materials was not presented in the proper way, the thermal stability of gelatin-based edible film should be added.


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: PHYSICAL AND FUNCTIONAL PROPERTIES OF FISH GELATIN-BASED FILM INCORPORATED WITH MANGROVE EXTRACTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is straight-forward easy to understand albeit with minor typographical errors. Both the results and discussion sections requires major improvement.
Figure 1 is not clear. It should be labelled. Please add a scale/magnification factor.
Experimental design: Standard methodologies were used but some is rather confusing and require further explanation.
The leaves of many plants have been shown to have antioxidant and antimicrobial activities - what is the reason for choosing two mangrove species in this study?
Lines 137-146: name the botanist who authenticated the leaves
Line 153: please explain how the range of extracts' concentration was chosen - this is crucial as in the subsequent parts, the authors stated that low bioactivities were due to "low concentrations of extracts"
Line 199: did the authors measured the pH at 80 degrees celcius?
Lines 214-223: positive control is missing
Lines 225-236: positive control is missing (positive controls are necessary to allow comparison of the results of test substances and some form of validation of the procedure in the assays)
SD/SE is missing in Table 1 - how many times the analysis was performed?
Error bars are missing in Figure 6.
Validity of the findings: The authors presented their results in tables and figures but description of their main findings in each section / table / figure is missing, for instance, there are no elaboration on the results of antioxidant and antimicrobial assays (lines 296-307).
The claims about phenolic compounds in mangrove extracts and hydrophobic polyphenolics (lines 351-362) are not substantiated.
Direct comparison of values obtained in this study vs. those in the literature is not possible due to differences in methodologies (lines 406-408).
Please justify why comparison was made to a study that used a completely different sample than what was used in this study (lines 422-423).
I Figure 6,  film without the addition of mangrove extracts showed considerable radical scavenging (10%).  Is this possible? Why are there two values reported when there is only one sample of film without any extracts. Please justify.
Lines 429-430: Please rephrase this sentence. "higher antioxidant activities were recorded as a higher concentration of leaf extracts was added to the film" - one need not perform the experiment to deduce this
Lines 430-431: "Our study showed that adding 0.05-0.35% of mangrove extracts resulted in relatively low antibacterial activities" The concentrations were decided by the authors. Again, there is very little comparison of the results obtained in this study with those in the literature.
The authors should revise the conclusion section. A more reasonable conclusion based on the findings in this study should be provided instead.
Additional comments: The manuscript describes the preparation of fish gelatin-based film with addition of mangrove extracts and studies on the functional, antioxidant and antibacterial properties of the resulting film. Findings are interesting but data presentation, analysis and interpretation is weak as explained above. Results need to be compared with the literature in order to make an accurate assessment of how the film fare compared to those that have been reported previously.


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: DEPTH EFFECT ON THE PROKARYOTIC COMMUNITY ASSEMBLAGE ASSOCIATED WITH SPONGES FROM DIFFERENT ROCKY REEFS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The study by González-Acosta et al describes the impact of depth on bacterial community of marine sponges inhabit different Rocky Reefs. The manuscript specifically focuses on bacterial community of marine sponges in a specific niche that has not much been explored. A study that compares prokaryotic community composition of marine sponges from different depth is rather limited, therefore, this work could provide additional insight on depth  impact on sponge-associated bacteria. In general, the structure of manuscript has followed the guidance of the journal and has been well-written. However, there are a number of inaccuracies observed regarding description of methods, presentation of results, the depth of discussions and conclusions which overall reduce the quality of manuscript.

Details are as follow:
Title: The author proposed a title “Depth effect on the bacterial community assemblage associated with sponges from different rocky reefs”. Although from the result indeed the presence of bacterial phyla were more dominant, the authors also reported the small percentage of Archaea.  Therefore, the term prokaryotic community would be more accurate instead of bacterial community.

Introduction:
Line 62-63: The author could add 1-2 sentence to explain why they focused to study sponge-prokaryotic community within 2-10 m. Currently there is no explanation in introduction.
Experimental design: Methods:
1.	Line 86-87: The comparison of prokaryotic community between Aplysina spp and Ircinia spp is rather inbalance given that Ircinia spp could only be found in 2 m depth and absence in deeper depth (10 m). Why authors did not select other sponge species that present both in 2 and 10 m which would make the comparison and number of samples fairer.

2.	Line 90-92: After sponge samples were collected, the authors did not explain how these specimens were identified. After collecting samples, authors must identify the species using COI barcoding or spicules to be sure an exact specimen they were working on. Indeed, sponge species within the same genus could share some prokaryotic phylum, however, at OTUs level such discrepancies can be quite wide. Thus, the comparison must be made between the same sponge species.
Depth is a proxy of other environmental factors; therefore, the additional environmental data is of importance to support the analysis.  The authors did not collect water samples from the location of sampling (at least 1 litre in triplicates). The lack of water samples would influence the analysis significantly because there would be lack of an important environmental control regarding prokaryotic community composition. Moreover, the analysis would be more accurate if the authors collected data on light intensity and temperature between the two depth or at least used secondary data from other publication on light pattern and temperature in the sampling location.

3.	Line 95: As the standard procedure before extracting DNA, sponge samples must be washed /cleaned with sterile seawater/artificial seawater three times to ensure all debris attached have been removed. In the current manuscript, authors did not explain whether such washing/cleaning was performed. Without a proper cleaning procedure, it is likely that the amplified bacterial communities from sponge specimens have been mixed up with environmental bacteria which could ruin the overall analysis.

4.	Line 120-13: The authors did not provide a supplementary file containing R-code and others related documents to perform the community profile analysis. The availability of R-code could be used for readers to reproduce the analysis.  The authors also did not mention whether or not the sequence data has been stored in public database such as GenBank or ENA.
Validity of the findings: The authors provided a well-prepared figure to highlight their findings. However, all main figures do not contain title or figure legend which make it challenging to understand the idea of each figure. In addition, the authors could give a more informative result by creating a heatmap that illustrates top OTUs with highest relative abundance among sponge specimens to indicate their contributions within their host. Authors could check papers from Dat et al (https://peerj.com/articles/4970/) or Steinert et al (https://peerj.com/articles/1936/). Since sponge prokaryotic community composition was amplified using the sponge EMP primers, authors could also confirm whether or not the OTU sequences they obtained belong to sponge-enriched OTUs (https://academic.oup.com/gigascience/article/6/10/gix077/4082886) by comparing their result with the dedicated database. The description on how the comparison is performed could also be found in Dat et al.

The term deep that was used to describe sponge samples taken from 10 m is rather inaccurate as the term deep can cover way beyond thousands kilometers. In fact, 2-10 m is still considered as shallow in term of how light penetrates. I would suggest to use the actual depth in the figure legend instead of “shallow” and “deep” to avoid misleading.

Discussion
Although Archaea presence in low relative abundance, their presence also needs to be discussed. At the moment, the authors have mainly focused to discuss the bacterial groups which in general have been well recognized. As mentioned in the result part, the discussion could be deeper if authors analyzed OTUs level and recognize which OTUs within dominant phyla that have changed (increased/decreased) or stable as depth increases.

Conclusion
Line 250-252: The authors concluded that depth plays more important role than host identity to determine prokaryotic community composition. This conclusion could be supported if only data regarding related environmental factors are available and tested. In addition, comparison of sponge bacterial community within sponge specimens that were identified until genus level makes such conclusion weak.
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: DEPTH EFFECT ON THE PROKARYOTIC COMMUNITY ASSEMBLAGE ASSOCIATED WITH SPONGES FROM DIFFERENT ROCKY REEFS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is well written and understandable, but the reviewer would recommend rephrasing some sentences for clarity:

Line 54: “which in this last deep water depth”. This is confusing, rephrase please.
Line 65: “The MS of Aplysina species”. Replace for example by Aplysina species, or MS belonging to Aplysina genus.
The last two paragraph in the introduction should be combined and the technical aspects of the sampling, such as sites, depths and so on should be moved to the Materials $ Methods section.
Line 130: Change out by OTU
Line 150-151: “both shallow water samples” is not correct. The authors mean the shallow sponge samples, but how the way the sentence is constructed it is confusing and needs to be change.
Line 155: Remove “(shallow)” as there’s no need to specify as there are only shallow samples for Ircinia. This is something to correct across the whole manuscript.
Line 156: Cyanobacteria was
Line 161: Bacteroidetes was
Line 162:163: rephrase: “Aplysina spp of shallow samples” changed it by “Shallow Aplysina sp. Samples”. Also, spp. refer to several species from the same genus, while sp. Refers to only one. Please check this through the manuscript.
Line 171: “deep water depth samples”: Rephrase. It is something that appears throughout the manuscript, and it is very confusing. It would be easier to use “deep samples” and “shallow samples”.
Line 192: Replace “followed” by “was performed”.
Line 199: “the most abundant phylum was”
Line 203: “This phylum”. Remember that “phyla” indicates the plural of “phylum”.
Line 208: replace “shallower” by “shallow”.
Line 221: they say 40% but in the figure 2 is 30%.
Line 229: Change Fig. 2 by Fig. 3.
Line 246: I would recommend the authors to delete “, and so on”.
Line 248: remove “(shallow and deep)”.

The authors made a good use of the references cited for supporting the research. However, line 203 a reference is missing at the end of the sentence that starts in line 201.
Also, reference Webster et al. 2010 in the “References” section does not appear in the manuscript.

It is recommended that the authors submit the sequences retrieved from this study to a NCBI or similar, to make them available for other researchers. In addition, the accession numbers provided once the submission is completed should be indicated in the manuscript.
Experimental design: In general the experiment is well designed and performed, but essential information must be indicated, as well as some decissions that the authors made before the experiment.
I would recommend the authors to re-organize the last two paragraphs of the Introduction, in order to define a clear aim of the study and avoid repetitions.
Moreover, I encourage the authors to indicate the number of samples that were collected at each depth from each species. This information can be retrieved from the figures but it is necessary to specify it in the “sample collection” part as well.
The authors should specify that what it is in brackets in lines 86 and 87 is the permission that they obtained for SCUBA diving.
The authors said that they isolate the heterotrophic bacteria from the sponges and for doing so they remove the pinacoderm of the sponges. However, this procedure can be a bit arbitrary: how may millimitre s did they remove?; how are they sure that all the phototrophic microorganisms were removed?. On the other hand, should the authors wanted to focus only on heterotrophic bacteria they should point out the reasons why, as in the aims it is not clear.
Validity of the findings: The authors claim that depth model sponge bacterial communities when the results showed that depth cause differences in composition and diversity of microbiome (actually on the heterotrophic bacteria) in one marine sponge species, as for the second sponge studied there were not deep samples.
Furthermore, they bring a step forward and said that microbiomes have the potential to determine environmental perturbations. This statement can actually be true, but the authors need to support this idea with other studies, given that the number of samples and only one species studied at two depth it is not possible to make such a statement.
Therefore, I encourage the authors to move this part of the conclusion to a final paragraph on the discussion
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: DEPTH EFFECT ON THE PROKARYOTIC COMMUNITY ASSEMBLAGE ASSOCIATED WITH SPONGES FROM DIFFERENT ROCKY REEFS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This study examines the microbial community of two species of sponges collected from the western coast of Mexico. There are much fewer of these type of studies from this region than the Caribbean and other parts of the Pacific so it is exciting to see the study.
The text reads well overall but there should be some careful typo and English editing in a few parts for clarity – for example, the last three sentences of the abstract could be clearer and check for typos such as “out” instead of “OTU” (L130).
Also, the primary goal of the study is not clear to me – there are different goals provided at the end of the abstract, L81 at the end of the introduction, and again at the end of the discussion. The implications for climate change seem to come out of nowhere with little context. I think this is relevant, but as written, there is not enough of a connection or background provided. Furthermore, given the experimental design with only one of the two species with ‘deep’ samples, the inferences that can drawn from the dataset are limited and that should be made clear in the writing.

L53-56 unclear and clunky
L62 why is “shallow” in quotes?
L65-67 and 73-77 – these introduce the study species and for Ircinia there is some more context for the interest in the species here, for Aplysina it could use some more context, it seems like a jump from the first sentence of the paragraph to the second sentence. Also, it seems like a sentence or two on the microbial species assemblages (e.g., presence of photosymbionts like Cyanobacteria) is well known for these and would be relevant information here.

Figures-
Fig 3a, what is the vertical line here? Was the OTU table rarefied at this sample size?
Fig5 The strange shape of the ‘deep’ samples in the box plot suggests a larger sample size is needed, this should be mentioned in the discussion/interpretation.
For the supplemental figures, is there a word document with corresponding text?
Experimental design: L92-95 was the whole section of sponge used for DNA extraction or just the pinacoderm, or just the mesohyl?
L133-136 what was used for normalization?
The experimental set up with only one species with ‘deep’ samples makes for limited ability to interpret deep/shallow other than for that one species. This should be made clear in the methods and the text should reflect a more specific inference in the Discussion – maybe using specific language to the species and this dataset would be helpful.
The other studies brought into the discussion particularly 215-239 help make for a more robust discussion, I think the authors could build on this a little more – 236-239 has a start, it would be great to see this expanded by a few sentences.

L246 remove “and so on”.
Validity of the findings: The analysis is sound, although I still want to know about whether there was rarefaction or relative proportions were used or some other normalization approach for the OTUs. And the same note about the lack of context for L251-254.
Additional comments: No further 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: DEPTH EFFECT ON THE PROKARYOTIC COMMUNITY ASSEMBLAGE ASSOCIATED WITH SPONGES FROM DIFFERENT ROCKY REEFS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have incorporated the first paragraph of the discussion that clarify important aspects related to the number of samples and study design. However, this information should also appear in the introduction and in the methods sections. Otherwise, an original paper in which the main objective is to study the depth effect on prokaryotic communities present in marine sponges, would have planned a deeper sampling design including more species, number of samples, and even more depths if possible. While it is interesting the study showed here, it is important to emphasize these issues.
Furthermore, I recommend the authors to avoid strong statements such as the one in line 32 and 400 (“strongly confirms, suggests”). They have to keep in mind, and write it accordingly, that the results of their research is based in only one sponge species in one location, and thus, this should be indicated in the conclusions.
Moreover, references according to Dat et al., 2018; Erwin et al. 2015; Schmitt et al., 2007; Schmitt et al., 2008; Souza et al., 2019; Steinert et al., 2016; Webster et al., 2013; are missing in the reference list
Experimental design: I disagree with the authors in the reason for what they remove the pinacoderm. If they wanted to remove potential microbial contamination from the seawater they should have submerged the sponge samples in sterile seawater. The authors should know that as filter-feeders the sponges not only are in contact with the microbial communities present in the seawater through the pinacoderm, but through the complex aquiferous system, formed by plenty of channels, they have in order to filter the seawater, what they are doing constantly. In fact, by using this methodology they risk of missing many bacteria present at the sponge periphery. Thus, I recommend the authors to explain in the manuscript the reasons why the removed the pinacoderm from the samples. Whether this procedure was done for the original aim of the study, which was to analyze the bioactive compounds, they should also indicate this in the manuscript. Finally, the interpretation of the results should also be made in accordance to the fraction of sponge tissue analyzed.
Validity of the findings: The authors should consider the original study design while interpreting the results obtained, as a low number of samples and species and only a fraction of the sponge tissue were studied, and they should not generalized the results to other sponge species.
Additional comments: Line 70, specify microbial community.
Line 247 rephrase, “examined” is repeated and lack of sense.
Line 254-255: change “communities prokaryotes” by prokaryotic communities.
Line315-316: link the two sentences.
Line 334-337. The authors say that shallow samples share more OTUs than the samples from the same genus. According to the Fig2b, Aplysina deep and shallow samples share 10.4%  OTUs while Aplysina-2m and Ircinia-2m share 6.1%. The authors must to correct this sentence. Moreover, it is worthy to mention that Ircinia samples share 4% of the OTUs with Aplysina-10m, which actually is not that different from the 6.1% between the shallow samples. Furthermore, this contrast to what is said in lines 348-353.
Line 386-389: reference needed.


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: DEPTH EFFECT ON THE PROKARYOTIC COMMUNITY ASSEMBLAGE ASSOCIATED WITH SPONGES FROM DIFFERENT ROCKY REEFS
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors made great changes to the manuscript and clarify an important part of the experimental design. However there are some aspects that need to be change.
Every time that the authors say Aplysina or Ircinia they should write sp. to specify that they mean to a species of such genus.
Line 75: after the comma start a new sentence or add a word such as "and".
Line 103: Replace Goméz by Gómez
Line 122 and 125: replace 16S rDNA by 16S rRNA.
Line 202: the authors mention results for ANOSIM analyses that are not explain in the methods section.
Line 206-207: this sentence should be moved to the discussion
Line 213-220: this large sentence is similar to that in line 75, and needs to be split in two or three for a better understanding. Moreover, replace 16S gen by 16S rRNA gene.
Line 234: remove capital letter from nitrifying.
Line 255: Chloroflexi was
Line 270: reference Pita Galán, 2014 should be Pita, 2014
Line 276-277: merge the two sentences or rephrase.
Line 285: Proteobacteria should be written with capital P.
Line 343-346: I would recommend the authors to remove this sentence. The results they found are interesting but they did not study the effect of environmental perturbations, so that based on their own results they can not confirm this.
Reference Cruz-Barraza & Carballo-Cenizo, 2008 is missing in the reference list
Reference Li et al. 2006 does not appear in the main text
Reference Mohamed et al., 2008 is missing in the reference list
Reference Verdugo Díaz 2004 does not appear in the main text
Reference Webster et al. 2010 does not appear in the main text
Figure 5: include axis labels, and explain to what samples the differences correspond.
Experimental design: no comment
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: TRANSCRIPTOME PROFILING REVEALS STRESS-RESPONSIVE GENE NETWORKS IN CATTLE MUSCLES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The writing of manuscript needs to be improved throughout. Sentences should be clearer, and more concise. Several suggestions and comments need to be addressed.
1.	The abstract is recommended to be rewritten and should be clearer, and more concise.
2.	The introduction should be supplemented with the latest references, such as lines 43-48, line 50, lines 53-58, lines 59-64.
3.	In animals and samples section, the language is too cumbersome and should be concise and clear.
4. For all Table and Figures, further optimization is required in terms of resolution, layout and fonts.
5. Line 246, line 248, Lines 263-264, the p-value is 0.1 or 0.08, is there any reference basis? What was the impact on the results? Is the significance statistically significant?
6. Line 226, line 302, line 307, etc. The gene symbol should be Italic across manuscript, and there are many similar formatting problems, please check them.
Experimental design: The purpose of the study, the experimental design and the results all make sense. However, in muscle transcriptome analysis, why the authors did not use RNA-Seq, the choice bovine microarray strategy, there are many limitations. Due to the transcription of genetic information has space-time specificity and tissue specificity, a lot of gene information will be lost.
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: TRANSCRIPTOME PROFILING REVEALS STRESS-RESPONSIVE GENE NETWORKS IN CATTLE MUSCLES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Please have a second set of eyes reading your manuscript to avoid grammar errors.
Experimental design: The manuscript titled “Transcriptome profiling reveals stress responsive gene networks in cattle muscles” presents results from a microarray analysis where transcriptome data from Longissimus thoracis muscle (LT) and the Semitendinosus muscle (ST) of cows exposed to stress (n=16) or not (n=16) preslaughter. The study connects gene expression data with QTL for meat tenderness and analyzes significant TFs. I would like to see more details on how the connections between DEGs and QTLs were established. Why only QTLs for meat tenderness were considered? There are many other QTLs affected by stress pre-slaughter that could be considered to make this analysis more complete.
Validity of the findings: The cutoff used to determine DEGs is confusing o me. It is mentioned that a P < 0.1 was considered (Line 246), I would like to know if a cutoff for FDR was also considered to establish the number of DEG for each comparison analyzed (EP diet, stress*EP diet, stress*diet or stress). In line 180 is written that “GO enrichment test was declared significant for P value Benjamini-Hochberg FDR < 0.05 or 0.08”. I would like to know if this FDR cutoff was also considered to calculate the number of DEG used in the GO enrichment analysis. It is not clear to me in the way it is written.

The decision of applying dietary treatments with vitamin E and polyphenols could be discussed in more detail. What was your expectation/hypothesis by supplementing them? References?

Functional enrichment using Wikipathways: I will recommend not to use Wikipathways; instead, consider using not only biological process GO term but also molecular functions and cellular component GO terms. It is common to see these 3 GO terms analyzed together. Even though it is an R application, Wikipathways decreases the quality of the manuscript because WikiPathways is a database of biological pathways maintained by and for the scientific community. Therefore, there are many hands changing these pathways constantly and makes me hard to fully trust in reliability of these pathways and that they were utilized in the right context.
Additional comments: Electronic feeding gates, please specify.


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: LIFE HISTORY AND OSSIFICATION PATTERNS IN MIGUASHAIA BUREAUI REVEAL THE EARLY EVOLUTION OF OSTEOGENESIS IN COELACANTHS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript on the histology and its implications for the life history of one of the oldest known coelacanths is scientifically sound, well organized and well written. The list of references is complete, as far as I can tell, and the raw data is available. In fact, I suggest that the photograph of the complete specimen, now in the supplementary data, be included in the main text (and possibly also in the two small tables).
Experimental design: The methods for histological studies and data acquisition are well described and sufficient.
Validity of the findings: There are few histological studies on coelacanth taxa so far, except some on Latimeria. This study is important because it is one of the first on an extinct taxon. Moreover, it deals with one of the basal most genera of the lineage and brings important information on the life history of this fish (7 years at death and 5 years at sexual maturity). Additionally, he points out important characteristics of coelacanths in general, in particular their low rate of endoskeletal ossification which has remained constant for almost 400 million years (although other taxa have yet to be tested).
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: LIFE HISTORY AND OSSIFICATION PATTERNS IN MIGUASHAIA BUREAUI REVEAL THE EARLY EVOLUTION OF OSTEOGENESIS IN COELACANTHS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript by Mondéjar-Fernández et al. presents novel data on the ossification patterns in Miguashaia post-cranial structures (radials), which are then used to draw conclusions on the evolution of osteogenesis in coelacanths. In general, manuscript is clear, data are well presented, and conclusions are valid (to the best of my knowledge). English grammar is correct throughout the manuscript. Background knowledge is clearly presented in the introduction and well supported by citations to the literature. Objectives are also clearly defined and relevant. Materials and methods section, however, should be described with more details (see specific comments below). Results and Discussion are fine (see below for small adjustments).
Supplementary figure 1: Legend is missing. I would include this figure in the manuscript to clearly illustrate the starting material
Line 92: “from the caudal fin of a single individual” How can this be verified
Line 93: Give more details on how the material were sectioned and dried.
Line 94: Give more details on how the sections were ground and polished.
Line 97: Give more details on how the microradiographies were acquired.
Line 98: define TL.
Line 106: How were determine the length and width of the radials? From Figure S1?
Line 108: Figure 1A, not 1a
Line 109: lateral expansion should be indicated in figure 1
Line 110: S how evidence for “open-ended” radials.
Lines 169; 171; 181; 183; 191: Figures should be described in the results, not in the discussion.
Line 197: what is the ground for the association with the production of numerous offspring via external fertilization”?
Line 221: Scale measurement should be presented in the results.
Figure 1: Lettering in panels B and C is poorly visible
Figure 2: As in figure 1, lettering should be improved to be clearly visible. Same comment for the scale bars. Indicate osteocyte lacunae in the images.
Figure 5: define b and c in panel A
Experimental design: see comments above
Validity of the findings: see comments above
Additional comments: see comments above


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: LIFE HISTORY AND OSSIFICATION PATTERNS IN MIGUASHAIA BUREAUI REVEAL THE EARLY EVOLUTION OF OSTEOGENESIS IN COELACANTHS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript provides informative paleohistological data of the caudal fin radials of a Late Devonian coelacanth, and reveals the osteogenesis in postcranial endoskeleton in early coelacanths.

Line 24: “weakly ossified skeleton”, here the authors should mean ‘endoskeleton’, even ‘postcranial endoskeleton’ The dermal skeleton and skull endoskeleton of coelacanths (at least for early coelacanths) is well ossified.
Line 25: Add ‘Upper’ in front of ‘Devonian’.
Line 36: ‘bones’ replaced by ‘radials’.
Line 33: poor rate?
Line 34: This sentence is somewhat misleading for the public (earliest coelacanths, 375 million years ago). Rewrite it.
Lines 41-44: The authors should be careful of the distinction between endoskeleton and dermal skeleton, as well as the distinction between endoskeleton of skull and postcranium. The mixed usage of these terms in the text will result in some logical inconsistency throughout the text. Did all categories of the skeleton undergo the retrogressive development in coelacanths? This should be clarified.
Line 52: important regression of the ossification rate?
Line 82: to evaluate the importance and evolution……? Rewrite it.

Figures: Median fin bones palaeohistology > Median fin bone palaeohistology?
References should be carefully edited.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: The authors should be careful of the caudal fin radials representing the endoskeleton of all categories (neurocranium, vertebrae, neural and haemal spines, endoskeletal girdles, etc.).  Is it possible that different osteogenesis occurs in different category? Is it likely that ‘the postcranial osteogenetic pattern with reduced endochondral ossification and secondary bone remodelling’ is a plesiomorphy of coelacanths? I would suggest the authors impose more restrictions on their conclusions.
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: LIFE HISTORY AND OSSIFICATION PATTERNS IN MIGUASHAIA BUREAUI REVEAL THE EARLY EVOLUTION OF OSTEOGENESIS IN COELACANTHS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: n.a.
Experimental design: n.a.
Validity of the findings: n.a.
Additional comments: Authors have satisfactorily addressed my comments and I consider that their manuscript 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: LIFE HISTORY AND OSSIFICATION PATTERNS IN MIGUASHAIA BUREAUI REVEAL THE EARLY EVOLUTION OF OSTEOGENESIS IN COELACANTHS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors well addressed my previous concerns or comments.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: no comment