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: IMPORTANCE OF CONSIDERING INTEROCEPTIVE ABILITIES IN ALEXITHYMIA ASSESSMENT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1) Abstract, line 27: Do you mean that early versions of the TAS contained items pertaining to interoception that are no longer included? This sentence is confusing and later sentences seem to contradict what I concluded from it.

2) Abstract, lines 29 – 30: Grammatical errors: “However, the revised version of alexithymia scale, the TAS-2-, contains three factors solution that do not involve interoceptive abilities.”

3) Abstract, line 33: I would note that these only include self-reported measures of psychological and physical health.

4) Abstract, line 44: It should be noted that there was a positive associated only with all measured psychological issues. The testing battery was not exhaustive of all possible psychological issues. The phrase ‘psychological issues’ is also rather ambiguous. Does this refer to clinical disorders, self-reported concerns or something else?

5) Abstract, line 48: What does “it seems important to develop a conceptual justification for the assessment of interoceptive abilities when considering the evaluation of alexithymia” mean?

6) Introduction, line 53: Page numbers should be provided with quotes.
Introduction, line 70: Could the authors identify the scales that were previously identified as lacking adequate psychometric properties?

7) Introduction, line 85: The phrase “fully-fledged dimension” should be replaced with more scientific terminology.

8) Introduction, line 85: The authors have thus far discussed factors and items within the structure of the TAS. What does a label constitute?

9) Introduction, line 89: Do the authors mean that the TAS-20 is the most widely used measure of alexithymia in empirical research, not the most widely used scale, generally-speaking?

10) Introduction, line 100: the TAS-20 is not designed for use in children. There are other measures based on the TAS-20 that have been validated in children. See, for example, the Alexithymia Questionnaire for Children (Rieffe et al., 2006, Personality and Individual Differences).

11) Introduction, line 128: “psychological and physical troubles” is a rather broad, colloquial term. Greater precision of terminology may be warranted.

12) Methods, line 141: “The remaining of participants” is grammatically incorrect.

13) Results, line 231: The authors report that items 16 and 20 were omitted because they loaded onto a factor with low reliability. It would be helpful to state what these items were here.

14) Discussion, line 392: “difficulty in awareness feelings” is not grammatically correct.
Discussion, line 404: Please rephrase “a massive deficit” with more appropriate language.

15) A figure showing the associations between the alexithymia factors and psychological and physical health measures would be helpful.
Experimental design: 1) In this study, the authors investigate the presence of a latent ‘interoceptive ability’ factor in the Toronto Alexithymia Scale, and how this relates to indicators of psychological and physical health, broadly defined. To this end, the authors employ a general population sample (predominately late adolescent, majority female psychology undergraduates) and questionnaire measures of various psychological and physical health characteristics, as well as measures of personality traits. Generalizations are then made about clinical symptomatology. There seems to be some confusion around the interpretation of personality traits as indicative of psychological and physical disorder, see for example, inclusion of the Neuroticism dimension of the Big Five personality inventory. Greater explanation of how these measures relate to clinical symptomatology should be provided, including reporting how many of the participants in this study meet cut-off criteria for clinically significant symptoms. Alternatively, the manuscript could be revised to more clearly reflect that this is study of subclinical traits in the general population, with adequate description of the limitations of generalizing from such a design.

2) Introduction, line 134: “The results of both studies support the importance of considering the presence of this latent factor”. Which two studies? In the absence of references, I assume the authors mean the two studies in the present manuscript here. It is rather circular to justify the present study with the results of that study.

3) In general, hypotheses should be outlined more clearly.

4) Have any important differences been identified been the two versions of the TAS-20 (4-point Likert scale and 5-point Likert scale)?  Could the authors speak more to the justification for including both in the present design?

5) Introduction, line 130: Could the authors expand on why they propose that factors of the TAS-20, apart from the proposed latent interoception factor, will not also relate to physical and psychological healthy problems? Are you proposing that previously observed associations between alexithymia and ill health are fully mediated by interoception, or that interoception and alexithymia are one and the same?

6) Methods, line 142: Based on the numbers, it looks as though Study 2’s sample was comprised only of undergraduate students, and Study 1’s sample was comprised of both undergraduates and general population adults recruited through social networks. Please explicitly state how these samples were formed and why the recruitment strategies differed.

7) Methods, line 168: The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D; Zigmond & Snaith, 1983) is a slightly odd choice for measuring depression symptoms in a general population sample. This tool was originally designed for use in medical outpatient clinics and not the general population. What was the motivation for using this scale in Study 1, and what motivated the switch to the Beck Depression Inventory in Study 2?

8) Methods, line 199: has the difference score between functional and dysfunctional coping been previously validated, or is it novel to this study? How does it distinguish between high levels of functional coping and low levels of dysfunctional coping versus high levels of dysfunctional coping and low levels of functional coping?

9) Methods, Line 202: In the absence of using validated measures of somatic disorders, eating disorders etc please provide further details. For example, were these questions designed to uncover if participants had a prior history of these conditions, or if they exhibited specific behaviors associated with these conditions? Consider including the questions in the supplementary materials so that readers can evaluate and/or fully replicate the design. How were scores on the questions treated during analysis, summed, averaged etc? Scores appear to be binary due to the use of logistic regression, but this should be stated explicitly.

10) Methods, line 205: How was the information on medication usage used? Were different classes of medication collapsed in the multiple regression analysis? Please report what medications were reported and their frequency.
Validity of the findings: 1) Results, line 332: The description of the multiple regression analyses is very confusing. Here’s it is stated that ‘NFs’ are entering as predictor variables but in Table 4 it appears that the TAS-20 factors are entered as the dependent variable (one model per factor) and the health variables are entered as the predictors. However, in the text, it reads as though one regression model has been conducted for each health variables as well (e.g. “For cardiovascular diseases, the model was significant..” with TAS-2- factors as predictor variables. Please clarify exactly how many regression analyses were performed. Further, is there an acceptable lack of multicollinearity to enter all the TAS-20 factors as predictor variables in the regression models? Relatedly, what does ‘NF’ stand for? In Table 4, the acronym ‘LF’ appears to be used, indicating latent factor.

2) Results, line 246: how was the “trend for significance” alpha level set?
Results, line 296: Please expand on the statement “omitting them would be against the theory”.

3) L. 388: Please expand on what is meant by the statement “it may be more appropriate to reconsider its place in the evaluation of alexithymia or to rewrite it”. It is not clear what is meant here.

4) Discussion, line 407: Could the authors expand on the link with emotion regulation and how this relates to the present study? Moreover, it is not clear how the association with emotion regulation relates to the grouping of DUF and DDF factors.

5) Discussion, line 432: The association between the new interoceptive dimension and cardiovascular disease warrants further discussion. Are the authors aware if this has previously been reported in the literature? Can they offer a rationale for why this relationship might exist?

6) Results, line 325: Here the authors state that an external oriented thinking style is one of the key features of alexithymia. However, in the Introduction they appeared to question the validity of this factor. Could they clarify.

7) Much of the discussion takes the stance that individuals high in alexithymia are at risk for developing physical and psychological symptoms of ill health. However, could it also not be possible that alexithymia represents a common co-occurring feature in many health conditions, and not necessarily the primary pathology? Likewise, could it be that individuals with ill health then develop alexithymia?
Additional comments: 1) Abstract, line 26: The authors state that “high alexithymia scorers have deficits in their interoceptive abilities which can lead to psychological and physical disorders”. This language implies a causality between interoception and illness that is yet to be firmly established. Further, what constitutes a deficit in interoception? Measures of interoception show variability across the population, with the majority of healthy adults being quite poor at objectively detecting their interoceptive signals. Is reduced interoception necessarily an indicator of impaired function?


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: IMPORTANCE OF CONSIDERING INTEROCEPTIVE ABILITIES IN ALEXITHYMIA ASSESSMENT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The aim of the paper is to re-examine the factorial structure of the TAS-20 using exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and then investigate the relationships between the resulting factors and other psychological and health data using regressions. To this end, authors conducted two online studies (N=253 and N=287). Results show a new structure of the questionnaire comprising four, rather than three, factors. Specifically, this structure reveals a new latent factor that authors name diﬃculty in interoceptive abilities. Authors conclude that this factor should be included in future assessment of alexithymia.

Overall, the paper is clearly written and the topic under investigation appears timely and relevant for the field of alexithymia. I have a few points that I believe authors should address to improve the current manuscript before publication.

The interoceptive difficulties that characterize individuals with alexithymia are an aspect that is currently receiving significant attention in the field, as shown by several papers published in the last years (e.g. J Murphy, R Brewer, H Hobson, C Catmur, G Bird - Biological psychology, 2018; J Murphy, C Catmur, G Bird Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2018; R Brewer, R Cook, G Bird Royal Society Open Science, 2016; C Scarpazza, H Huang, A Zangrossi, S Massaro, Journal of Psychosomatic Research 2018; C Scarpazza, G di Pellegrino Current Developments in Alexithymia-a Cognitive and Affective Deficit, 2018; Herbert BM, Herbert C, Pollatos O., Journal of personality. 2011 Oct;79(5):1149-75.). Nevertheless, this literature is not mentioned in the paper. Authors should include these studies in their introduction in order to strengthen the rationale for their study. Additionally, they should enrich their discussion by commenting their results in the broader context of this literature.
Experimental design: Methods:
Regarding the coping strategies scores, I believe authors should clarify the rationale used to classify each coping strategy in each of the three categories, especially for those placed in the “coping with varying functionality”. Additionally, it seems that the mean score for the “coping with varying functionality” category was neither used to compute the coping strategy score nor as dependent variable in the regression model. Was this an a priori choice? If so, why was data collected also on those scales and why were they not included in the analyses? Please, clarify these points.
Validity of the findings: Results:
I suggest authors to report the direction of significant regressions for all the significant regressions, because it would ease readability. This is done for most but not for all regressions (e.g. line 338 “LF1 predicted eating disorders only in Study 1”).

Line 355-356 LF3 is stated to positively predict effective coping strategies in Study 1. I believe it should be “negatively”.
Additional comments: Minor issues:
Line 106 should state “other solutions” instead of “others solutions”


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: IMPORTANCE OF CONSIDERING INTEROCEPTIVE ABILITIES IN ALEXITHYMIA ASSESSMENT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: My thanks to Fournier and colleagues for their work on this project. As I understand it, you have argued that the TAS-20 used to assess trait varience in emotional insight contains a factor which was purportedly removed when the TAS-26 was updated.  You also assessed the validity of the 4 factors of TAS-20 by examining their power in predicting several health outcomes. I liked this study and I think that this kind of work can be underappreciated. I recommend that it be published.

I recommend just two small additions:
1. In the introduction section could you add a sentence or two on the theoretical or practical significance of imposing an incorrect factor structure on the TAS-20 (if indeed the 3 factor solution is misleading).
2. In the procedure could you indicate where in the sequence of surveys subjects answered the demographic items.


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: IMPORTANCE OF CONSIDERING INTEROCEPTIVE ABILITIES IN ALEXITHYMIA ASSESSMENT
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I thank the authors for the significant revisions they have made to their manuscript, which is now much stronger. I have one remaining suggestion, but otherwise would recommend this manuscript for publication.

Line 589: In the discussion of the limitations of the study, the word “transversal” should be replaced with “cross-sectional”, as this is the correct terminology for what I believe the authors are trying to say.
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: IMPORTANCE OF CONSIDERING INTEROCEPTIVE ABILITIES IN ALEXITHYMIA ASSESSMENT
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I believe authors exhaustively addressed my comments.
Experimental design: I believe authors exhaustively addressed my comments.
Validity of the findings: I believe authors exhaustively addressed my comments.
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: IMPORTANCE OF CONSIDERING INTEROCEPTIVE ABILITIES IN ALEXITHYMIA ASSESSMENT
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: meets standards
Experimental design: meets standards
Validity of the findings: meets standards
Additional comments: My thanks to Fournier and colelagues for their revisions. I am now happy to recommend acceptance.
best,
Glenn Carruthers


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: VALIDATING ANTHROPOGENIC THREAT MAPS AS A TOOL FOR ASSESSING RIVER ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY IN ANDEAN–AMAZON BASINS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript aims to validate anthropogenic threat maps as a tool for assessing river ecological integrity in Andean-Amazon basins using distinct statistical methods, e.g. GLM, cross-validation. In general, the manuscript is well written using clear and professional English, and the literature review and background introduction are sufficient. Also, the structure, figures, tables are okey. However, I have two main concerns here:
1) Method: more details are needed. For instance, which functions are used for different R packages. It would be great if the authors can share the raw data and R scripts as an appendix, so that the results can be re-produced for other catchments.

2) Calculation of ecological integrity: the authors gave different weight to various categories, but the references are lack. Please add them (line 215).

3) Validation of the models: do you have a criterion for a reliable or satisfactory validation (you used cross-validation)? I am asking because your prediction powers are very low (Table 2). In addition, please try to compare your results with relevant or similar studies.
Experimental design: no comment. Regarding the method, please see above.
Validity of the findings: The idea (i.e., anthropogenic threat maps) is novel and creative. However, the results in particular prediction powers are not strong enough. Please see my comments above.
Additional comments: NA


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: VALIDATING ANTHROPOGENIC THREAT MAPS AS A TOOL FOR ASSESSING RIVER ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY IN ANDEAN–AMAZON BASINS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is handling a very important and urgent topic, it is very well and in most sections clearly written. It is structured in a very professional way and I really enjoyed reading it.

However, clear hypotheses are missing at the end of the introduction and I would love to see them stated in a revision of this article.
Experimental design: This article represents primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal, and they should clearly be published within, after a more major than minor revision.

As stated above, the hypotheses and the related research questions are not defined clearly, this needs to be done in a revision of the article. It is somehow clear, how this research fills the identified knowledge gap, but I would love to see a broader discussion of this, backed up with more international citations on this field of conservation planning.

Basically, the investigation seems to be performed at high technical & ethical standard, in terms of methods and results, I however have a few very specific comments:

Materials & Methods
Lines 151/152: Please give a very short explanation of the páramo ecosystems, as readers not familiar with the Andean/Amazonian system might not recognize this ecosystem type.

Lines 161-164: Please proof how the independence between sites was considered in the sampling design and give a reference.

Line 194: Not clear what is meant by the "microbasin scale", please define and explain already at this stage. Also, not clear to me how and especially why the measured values were compared to the modeled ones - please explain.

Lines 197-202: By just averaging the three single indices, the computation of the Ecological Integrity Index (EII) is done in very simple an generalizing way, which often underestimates the effect/impact of single categories. Previous studies as e.g. Chen et al. (2017)
Chen, K., Hughes, R. M., Brito, J. G., Leal, C. G., Leitão, R. P., de Oliveira-Júnior, J. M., ... & Hamada, N. (2017). A multi-assemblage, multi-metric biological condition index for eastern Amazonia streams. Ecological indicators, 78, 48-61.

or Schinegger et al. (2012)
Schinegger, R., Trautwein, C., Melcher, A., & Schmutz, S. (2012). Multiple human pressures and their spatial patterns in E uropean running waters. Water and Environment Journal, 26(2), 261-273.

have shown more complex ways how to calculate stressor indices or MMI's in a more complex way and I would love to see a more complex EII calculation as scenario B, in order to compare the results (e.g. a weighted index). If this is not possible, I at least would expect a comprehensive discussion of the limitations of such an approach and a justification (with references) why this one was chosen/sticked with.

Lines 205-2013: Please highlight the sources of datasets here, as done later on for environmental variables. Also, I'd like to see more details, as e.g. resolution of datasets etc.in the Appendix table B.

Lines 2015-2016: Not clear to me, where the specialized references can be found, information in Appendix B is quite short and should be extended, also for the references (full dataset reference and publication citation, if possible.)

Lines 2019-220: According to which reference did you select the maximum distance/buffer? Please provide scientific proof with references and/or a justification why there is no references.

Lines 233-234: As stated before, the term "microbasin" and the spatial framework for the whole study is not clearly explained/defined at all, this needs to be done, maybe earlier in the manuscript already, when it is mentioned the first time.

Lines 247-257: If possible in this journal, give an example of the GLM calculation in the way of a formula with the darious elements.

Line 253: Please give a reference for your AIC selection procedure.

Line 258-270: Please justify why you used this validation procedure and give a reference for it.

Results
Line 290: The "river scale" is not defined/mentioned before, please do this and include it in your spatial framework description.
Validity of the findings: Impact and novelty of findings is assessed, however, I miss a bit a discussion in a broader context, e.g. in terms of strategic conservation planning with related cost, e.g. the works of Simone Langhans and especially Virgilio Hermoso, which would fit very well into the discussion section.

Also, I would like to see a "Uncertainties & Limitations" paragraph in the discussion, where weaknesses of the study's approach are discussed, e.g. limitation of macroinvertebrates to indicate certain large-scale stressors (or the ability of other indicators to do better), and any other issues, especially related to the large spatial scale and related biases in datasets etc. --> here, you could read a bit the literature, e.g. Dave Allan et al. (2004 --> Landscape scale studies). Also, check the literature of Bob Hughes and his conclusions/limitations for South American IBI's.
In terms of fragmentation, I also propose to discuss the paper of Anderson et al. (2018) in a wider context, as the connectivity aspect, which is very crucial for the investigated area, is not well covered in the selected stressor-datasets.
Anderson, E. P., Jenkins, C. N., Heilpern, S., Maldonado-Ocampo, J. A., Carvajal-Vallejos, F. M., Encalada, A. C., ... & Salcedo, N. (2018). Fragmentation of Andes-to-Amazon connectivity by hydropower dams. Science advances, 4(1), eaao1642.

Finally, in the conclusions, I also see a few speculations which should clearly be identified as such, e.g. that the findings assure reliable results, which is - in such a generalized way - simply not true.
Additional comments: Finally, however, I think this study is really important and good work, which should be published in this journal, after revision.


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: GENOMIC DIVERSITY OF PREVALENT STAPHYLOCOCCUS EPIDERMIDIS MULTIDRUG-RESISTANT STRAINS ISOLATED FROM A CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL IN MÉXICO CITY IN AN EIGHT-YEARS SURVEY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall, the manuscript is reasonably well written.
Experimental design: The research question is well defined but the study is seriously flawed based on isolate selection. The genetic analysis approaches are comprehensive and well-described. However, a significant bias was introduced into the study by selecting, seemingly at random, a small group of isolates that were antibiotic resistant and recovered over a seven year period.
Validity of the findings: In my view, many of the findings are not valid for the reasons I have provided under general and specific comments below.
Additional comments: GENERAL COMMENTS: This study undertook a very comprehensive investigation of 17 selected clinical isolates of Staphylococcus epidermidis recovered in a tertiary care hospital in Mexico between 2006 and 2013 in order to investigate whether specific traits could be assigned to isolates from cases of infection. Overall the analysis of the isolates is very thorough and involved whole genome sequencing (WGS) and comparison with selected genomes of S. epidermidis in GenBank. The detailed genetic analysis is impressive. Eight multilocus sequence typing (MLST) sequence types (STs) were inferred from the WGS data, six with a worldwide distribution. Many antimicrobial agent resistance genes were also identified and a number of virulence genes. The population of isolates investigated was found to have a clonal structure. High rates of recombination were also identified and an uneven distribution of insertion sequences, prophages and CRISPER Cas immunity systems.
In my view, even though the present study is comprehensive, it is limited by the small number of isolates investigated, the basis of their selection (i.e. antibiotic resistant) and the timeframe (several years) over which the isolates were recovered. I have provided a number of specific comments below for the authors’ consideration, which are intended to be constructive.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS:
(1). In my view it would have been prudent to investigate a much larger number of S. epidermidis clinical isolates recovered over a shorter period of time (e.g. a year) in the same hospital without biasing the population of isolates selected based on their being resistant to methicillin. This suggested approach would provide a more accurate population of S. epidermidis isolates to accurately determine whether specific traits could be associated with isolates responsible for infection.

Very little information is provided on the basis of isolates selection in the Materials and Methods section, yet the first few lines of the Results state that isolates were “selected according to its outstanding antibiotic resistance profile”. Such a choice (pre-selection) introduces a major bias into the study. This choice is reflected by the not unsurprising finding of many antibiotic resistance genes in the isolates WGS sequences. Many S. epidermidis (both commensal and from infection) harbour antibiotic resistance genes, including mecA encoding methicillin resistance. In the present study, 15/17 isolates were methicillin resistant.

(2). The group of isolates selected for study were recovered over a seven-year period. This is far too long a span to suggest the isolates “were representative” of the S. epidermidis circulating in the hospital concerned. As S. epidermidis is a ubiquitous skin colonizer of humans and many animals, the population circulating in a hospital over many years would be vast.

(3). A total of 15/17 isolates investigated wee found to harbour an SCCmec type IV element, five of which also harboured SCCmec type V element. Isolates S12 and S15 were found to harbour SCCmec II, IV and V elements. SCCmec IV is the most common SCCmec element identified previously in S. epidermidis. The authors should provide a detailed figure showing the structural organization of the SSCmec structures relative to each other identified in the five isolates with multiple SCCmec elements. I presume one element was inserted in orfX and subsequent elements were inserted in tandem for each of these five isolates?


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: GENOMIC DIVERSITY OF PREVALENT STAPHYLOCOCCUS EPIDERMIDIS MULTIDRUG-RESISTANT STRAINS ISOLATED FROM A CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL IN MÉXICO CITY IN AN EIGHT-YEARS SURVEY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In this manuscript the authors isolated and sequenced 17 antibiotics-resistant SE strains, and found some interesting results like non-pathogenic SEs from patients and impacts of recombination on genome evolution of Staphylococcus. It's a generally a good study. But its writing needs be improved greatly.
Experimental design: line 184-186 264-266 All of the SE strains were first isolated based on their ability to resist antibiotics. If it is so there should be more details regarding how this is done.
Validity of the findings: line 173: only identical sequences were recorded in CRISPR-Cas identification. But was it too stringent? At least some reasons or citations should be put here.
line 251: few or 'a few'? This impacts that paragraph a lot.
line 409-411: the authors said that the lack of ica is suggestive of non-pathogenic strains. This is an important conclusion. But are there any possibilities that they are actually pathogenic strains that use different virulence factors? Besides it might be good to label the presence of ica and other virulence factors in the phylogeny of all strains, for instance in figure 1.
Additional comments: line 68-70 and line 78-80: I think the same sentence is repeated. besides, do you mean phage or prophage (also in line 384 and throughout the manuscript)?


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: GENOMIC DIVERSITY OF PREVALENT STAPHYLOCOCCUS EPIDERMIDIS MULTIDRUG-RESISTANT STRAINS ISOLATED FROM A CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL IN MÉXICO CITY IN AN EIGHT-YEARS SURVEY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: the authors have addresses my concerns.
Experimental design: the authors have addresses my concerns.
Validity of the findings: the authors have addresses my concerns.
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: GENOMIC DIVERSITY OF PREVALENT STAPHYLOCOCCUS EPIDERMIDIS MULTIDRUG-RESISTANT STRAINS ISOLATED FROM A CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL IN MÉXICO CITY IN AN EIGHT-YEARS SURVEY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In this manuscript, the authors used the whole genome sequencing for 17 S. epidermidis strains and obtained a large package of interesting results. The manuscript is well written, the English have been improved and the aims were clarified. Still, I do have some comments which should be taken into consideration before acceptance.

Overall, the introduction is sufficient but in my opinion authors should also mention the host specific colonization by Staphylococcus strains. The authors truly mention that : “There is no clear genetic distinction between pathogenic and commensal non-pathogenic SE strains, even though nosocomial strains are enriched in virulence and antibiotic resistance genes (..)” and here the literature-based host adaptation should be mentioned. As the species-specific adaptation is associated with MGEs but also with reorganization of the entire genomes and may also be linked to different virulence patterns.

Line 106: This abbreviation INPer should be explained here. If not, please leave only SE.
Experimental design: This study concerns an important topic of genetic diversity of opportunistic Staphylococcus epidermidis bacteria, which can be especially pathogenic for neonates. The research meets the scope of the journal. The methods are appropriate and based on innovative tools although the low number of the used strains is a drawback. Also I recommend more clarification especially how the NGS experiments were performed as it is crucial for valid results.

Line 130: Please provide details how the bacterial strains were cultured prior to genomic DNA extraction
Lines 130-131: Please provide details how the DNA concentration and quality was measured
Lines 131-134: Please provide the Illumina cartridge and buffer system used for sequencing and the produced reads length
Line 132: Please correct: MiSeq unit not MySeq unit
Validity of the findings: Overall, I find the results novel and interesting. I do have some concerns about figures and tables. Also the MRSE phenotype and genotype should be checked in more detail.

Lines 200-201: Please provide the information how the isolates were identified at the species level – chromogenic growth media, Vitek, MALDI-TOF MS?
Figure 1: All subsections of the Figure 1 (A-H) should have the same scale – 1 -11 antibiotics and the scale at y-axis should be the same in all figure subsections as now the same height of the bars indicate both 10 and 60 strains, please refer
Please ensure that the figure have enough quality as now it is not easy readable, it should have higher quality
Lines 289-290: I think that MIC values should be provided at least for methicillin resistance
Line 293: How the methicillin susceptibility of S10 and S16 was determined since in Table 2 these strains are included as resistant?
Line 294: As indicated in Table 2, the methicillin resistance was observed for 15 strains not 14, please refer
Table 2: Why not the same antibiotics set used for all isolates?
Lines 289-307: Did you check if any of the strains have ACME element?
Lines 302-303: The mecC gene presence should be investigated as S10 and S16 strains demonstrated phenotypic methicillin resistance and lack the SCCmec cassette, and mecA gene
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: GENOMIC DIVERSITY OF PREVALENT STAPHYLOCOCCUS EPIDERMIDIS MULTIDRUG-RESISTANT STRAINS ISOLATED FROM A CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL IN MÉXICO CITY IN AN EIGHT-YEARS SURVEY
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: Minor comments:

Please provide producent and country of origin of reagents used in a whole study, ie. lines: 196, 197

Line 202 genome assembly
Validity of the findings: Minor comments:

Fig. 1A lacks x-axis numeric scale (resistance count)
Additional comments: Authors improved the manuscript significantly and added all my corrections and suggestions.


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: GENOMIC DIVERSITY OF PREVALENT STAPHYLOCOCCUS EPIDERMIDIS MULTIDRUG-RESISTANT STRAINS ISOLATED FROM A CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL IN MÉXICO CITY IN AN EIGHT-YEARS SURVEY
Review round: 4
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: NEW SOURCES OF SYM2A ALLELE IN THE PEA (PISUM SATIVUM L.) CARRY THE UNIQUE VARIANT OF CANDIDATE LYSM-RLK GENE LYKX
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The study presented here aimed (i) to identify additional pea (Pisum sativum) accessions that harbour the Sym2A allele, and (ii) to determine whether non-synonymous polymorphisms in the LysM-receptor encoding gene PsLykX correlate with this allele.
Pea Sym2 is a locus that determines rhizobium Nod factor structure-dependent host specificity. Pea accessions that harbour the so-called Afghan allele of Sym2 (Sym2A) can only be effectively nodulated by Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar viciae (Rlv) strains that contain nodX, a gene encoding an acetyl-transferase that acetylates that reducing end of the Nod factors.

The molecular nature of the pea Sym2 locus is an enigma in the legume symbiosis research field. It is generally anticipated that it encodes a LysM-type receptor kinase that functions as a Nod factor receptor, as such genes have been identified in a Sym2 syntenic region in Medicago truncatula (Limpens et al., 2003). However, formal evidence that this is the case is lacking. I have the opinion that this should be stated more clearly in the manuscript.

Also, it remains elusive whether the Sym2 locus represents single or multiple genes. For example, in  M. truncatula and Lotus japonicus at least two tandemly duplicated LysM-type RLK encoding genes have been identified in the Sym2 orthologous region that function in LCO recognition (Limpens et al., 2003; Murakami et al., 2018). In pea at least 3 LysM-RLKs (PsK1, PsSym37 and PsLykX) have been found to be genetically linked to the Sym2 locus. So, it can not be ruled out that the LCO-dependent infection phenotype is determined by the interplay of two or more genes.

The reason why the molecular nature of the Sym2 locus has not yet been resolved is two-fold; (i) the complexity of the pea genome which frustrates genome sequencing strategies, and (ii) the difficulty to conduct reverse genetic studies due to extremely inefficient transformation protocols. Sulima et al., identified additional pea lines that harbour a Sym2A-like allele, are of relevance for future genome sequencing initiatives.

I find the manuscript well structured and written in clear and understandable English. Although I am not a native speaker, I have the feeling that editing by a native English speaker may be welcomed to further improve the MS.

Concerning literature references, most of the relevant papers have been cited. However, in my opinion, one citation, which is critical to understand the Nod factor specificity of Sym2A  is lacking; namely, Ovtsyna et al., 1998 Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. In this study, it is shown that the bacterial nodX gene (encoding an acetyl-transferase) can be functionally replaced by nodZ of Bradyrhizobium to allow nodulation on SYM2A harbouring pea lines. As nodZ encodes a fucosyl-transferase that fucosylates the reducing terminus of Nod factors, it clearly indicates that the Nod factor specificity encoded by  Sym2A is less stringent than suggested here by Sulima et al. (e.g. lines 91-94).
Experimental design: Sulima and co-workers identified 6 pea accessions that can be nodulated with the nodX harbouring Rlv strain A1, but not with the nodX lacking strain RCAM1026. Subsequent allelism studies were conducted using a complex crossing scheme (Table S5) and nodulation assays on F1 hybrid plants. Although I can agree with the chosen strategy of crossings, I feel uncomfortable with the low number of F1 plants that have been tested (as low as n=3). Also, it can not be ruled that the inhibitory infection phenotype in the newly identified accessions is genetically dominant, though independent of Sym2. Therefore, it will be needed to study also an F2 population.
Validity of the findings: Based on the finding of non-synonymous polymorphisms in the receptor domain of PsLykX it is argued that “it is very likely PsLykX is Sym2” (line 307-311). To my opinion, the scientific basis for such a hypothesis is lacking. The authors identified a new allele for PsLykX (named Tajik), which is present in two of the four newly identified Sym2A harbouring accessions (K-3821 and K-3374). However, there is no amino acid substitution identified that strictly correlates with the Sym2A allele. To overcome this problem, it is argued that the Afghan and Tajik allelic variants of PsLykX evolved in parallel, resulting in different amino acid substitutions when compared to the ‘European’ alleles of PsLykX (line 311-313). To me, this parallel evolution hypothesis seems far fetched and would require additional support. Possibly the authors could make use of trans complementation studies of Lotus japonicus receptor mutants and the observation that Sym2A can b nodulation also by a nodZ harbouring strain (which is generally present in Mesorhizobium loti, the natural host of L. japonicus).
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: NEW SOURCES OF SYM2A ALLELE IN THE PEA (PISUM SATIVUM L.) CARRY THE UNIQUE VARIANT OF CANDIDATE LYSM-RLK GENE LYKX
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In this manuscript Sulima et al determined the nodulation phenotype of 122 pea lines from the Middle East inoculated with nodX- and nodX+ R. leguminosarum strains in order to find new “Afghan” lines requiring acetylation in the C6 position of the Nod factor. In total six new lines were found. Subsequent sequencing of intron 1 of the LykX gene in these lines revealed SNPs leading to three amino acid substitutions previously found in this gene within “Afghan” lines. Interestingly two pea lines had a single nucleotide change that leads to a single amino acid substation compared to the “European” lines. This new “Tajik” allele was by allelism test shown to be allelic to the previous Sym2A allele in “Afghan” lines and also result in the same lack of infection tread development.

The manuscript is generally well-written and the results presented supports the conclusions.

In line 63 a review from Gough et al 2018 is used to summarize crucial observations. This is not very helpful for the reader and at least some of the original articles should be cited.

Line 456. The journal listed for this work is wrong.
Experimental design: The experimental setup presented is sound and the methodology well described. However, the genetics of the new “Tajik” allele is not sufficiently described. It is important to determine whether this allele is a recessive, dominant or semidominant. One would assume that the “Tajik” line has already been crossed with an appropriate line and nodulation of a segregating population has been or could be scored.

Table 1 list a K-6566 line but no sequence analysis of the LykX gene is included in Table 2. What is the reason for this omission?
Validity of the findings: The genetics of the new “Tajik” allele is not sufficiently described. It is important to determine whether this allele is a recessive, dominant or semidominant. One would assume that the “Tajik” line has already been crossed with an appropriate line and nodulation of a segregating population has been or could be scored.
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: NEW SOURCES OF SYM2A ALLELE IN THE PEA (PISUM SATIVUM L.) CARRY THE UNIQUE VARIANT OF CANDIDATE LYSM-RLK GENE LYKX
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: ok
Experimental design: could be improved
Validity of the findings: ok
Additional comments: I still think that analysis of a segregating population from a  “Tajik” X “European” hybrid, that the authors say they will do in the future, would have allowed them to make a stronger conclusion on the current manuscript.


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: HEMATOLOGICAL CONVERGENCE BETWEEN MESOZOIC MARINE REPTILES (SAUROPTERYGIA) AND EXTANT AQUATIC AMNIOTES ELUCIDATES DIVING ADAPTATIONS IN PLESIOSAURS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is well written, unambiguous and uses professional English throughout.  Introduction and background clearly describes the Sauropterygia and the issues involved in their bauplan, lifestyle and habitat utilization, utilizing multiple support including inner ear morphology and RBC size derived from various measures of bone capillary circulation.  Structure conforms to PeerJ standards and figures are relevant, high quality, and well labeled and described.  Supplement provides appropriate raw data.

This further documents and clarifies the adaptation of this group to diving behavior.  Underlying data is robust and sound.
Experimental design: Experimental design is original primary research within scope of the journal.  The research question is well defined, relevant and meaningful and identifies how it fills an identified knowledge gap.  It has been performed to a high technical and ethical standard, including discussion and citation of articles with alterative explanations or outliers.
Validity of the findings: Conclusions are well stated, linked to the original research question and limited to supporting results.
Additional comments: I commend the authors for their multi-disciplinary approach.  The manuscript is clearly written in professional, unambiguous language.  I find no weakness, but would suggest one minor alteration to figure 3.  Perhaps consider incorporation of the data (Rothschild and Storrs 2003) that they cited:
Perhaps enter the prevalence information of avascular necrosis evidence for deep diving”
Neusticosaurus 4/346
Nothosaurus – 0/2000
Pliosaurus – 3/7
Plesiosaurus 7/30
Cryptoclidus 1/23
Polycotylus 0/9
Elasmosauridae 3/7


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: HEMATOLOGICAL CONVERGENCE BETWEEN MESOZOIC MARINE REPTILES (SAUROPTERYGIA) AND EXTANT AQUATIC AMNIOTES ELUCIDATES DIVING ADAPTATIONS IN PLESIOSAURS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This is a very exciting and intriguing study.  I found the discussion to be balanced and engaging and well written. A minor but important point that should be included in the discussion is that smaller RBC's are tightly correlated with higher aerobic athleticism in vertebrates that use either terrestrial locomotion or that fly. Larger RBC's in marine groups are generally thought to be the result of a reduced cost of transport in swimming animals compared to flying or running vertebrates. Thus, the finding of larger RBC's in pistosauroids is mysterious. The explanation that more hemoglobin is stored in larger cells is not compelling, or needs to be better justified in the discussion, for the following reason.  It would seem that it is the total hemoglobin in the blood, which is a function of the hematocrit, and not simply the hemoglobin content of each cell, that would be important for the blood's capacity for oxygen storage. Thus many small RBC's would be as effective for oxygen storages as fewer, larger RBCs if hematocrit is constant. Furthermore, as mentioned in the manuscript, large RBC's will slow gas exchange due to the reduced surface area to volume ratio. Thus, it would seem, there must be another explanation for the enlarged cells.

I don't claim to have the answer, but it would be nice to hear some alternative explanations. Could the enlarged RBC's be related to the time spent at the surface replenishing oxygen stores?  If pistosauroids spent more time breathing at the surface than other groups, there might be relaxed selection for rapid transport of gas between blood and air. Could it be that they were selected more for locomotor economy than sustained high speed swimming? Or perhaps greater efficiency of locomotion reduced the energetic cost of swimming? At any rate, the idea of greater oxygen carrying capacity of the blood being the driver for enlarged RBC's is not very convincing, unless, as was stated, this is related to changes in viscosity. However, the relationship with viscosity was not well developed, and could use more attention.

Another minor point is that it would be nice to see snakes separated by a different symbol figure 4, particularly since they have the opposite slope.


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: HEMATOLOGICAL CONVERGENCE BETWEEN MESOZOIC MARINE REPTILES (SAUROPTERYGIA) AND EXTANT AQUATIC AMNIOTES ELUCIDATES DIVING ADAPTATIONS IN PLESIOSAURS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper would be improved if on line 104 the authors replace 'detailly studied' with 'studied in detail'.  Detailly is not a word. Otherwise, the paper is ready for publication.
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: GENOME-WIDE IDENTIFICATION AND TRANSCRIPTIONAL EXPRESSION ANALYSIS OF SUPEROXIDE DISMUTASE (SOD) FAMILY IN WHEAT (TRITICUM AESTIVUM)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Pay attention to grammatical errors.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The manuscript entitle "Genome-wide identification and transcriptional expression analysis of superoxide dismutase (SOD) family in wheat (Triticum aestivum)" identified 26 SOD genes in wheat. It is a good topic and be of siganificance for the wheat SOD protein. However, this study has the following points need to be major revision.

1. Though it is well-known that the role of SOD family about stress tolerance. I hereby recommend this study should add some newestly researches in INTRODUCTION section.
2. Pay attention to grammatical errors.
3. Line 22: Arabidopsis should be Italic.
4. Lines 25: This sentence seem to confused; please rephrase.
5. Introduction: The author did not provide any logical reason why it is important to study SOD family in Wheat. They talked about SOD and stress in the three paragraphs but didn't provide any link between that and Wheat. How can this study benefit Wheat (breeding or physiological studies).
6. Lines 179: Are there some evidence to prove C-terminus is key region for the function of TaSODs？
7. Lines 280: motif3 and motif6 should be omit.
8. Are there conserved functions for SOD genes in plants?
9. The discussion part did not discuss or properly address the findings

Therefore I whole heartedly suggest this manuscript for publication in peerj after a moderate revision.


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: GENOME-WIDE IDENTIFICATION AND TRANSCRIPTIONAL EXPRESSION ANALYSIS OF SUPEROXIDE DISMUTASE (SOD) FAMILY IN WHEAT (TRITICUM AESTIVUM)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is a little colloquial, especially in the Abstract and Introduction , there is some obvious mistake,For example:
P5 L20,"Superoxide dismutases (SODs) are a family of key antioxidant enzyme enzymes", "enzyme" repetitively appeared.
P6 L38, the word "disease" should be replaced by "pathogens".
P6 L51-52, the statement about SOD lack a proper reference.
P7 L60-61, the sentence "SOD constitutes the first line of defense in ROS elimination in plant. This enzyme is ubiquitous in the plant kingdom and occurs in numerous forms." should be delated, for the similar information has been presented.
P4 L73-74, please add the Latin name of the species which firstly appear in your manuscript.
The Abstract was a flat statement, and the author should present a scientific direction based on the results of this manuscript, which can arouse their own and audiences` interest.
The manuscript should be rewrite carefully by a professional editor.
Experimental design: The RNA-seq results  MUST need quantative-PCR support, it is a critical experiment for this manuscript, especially the expression pattern of SOD.
It is encouraged that the author introduce biochemistry tests of SOD enzyme activity, which they regard as important.
Validity of the findings: I agree with the authors that SOD family play an indispensable role in response to biotic and abiotic stress. Bioinformation excavation is a smart start, and optimize the released nucleotide sequence is approbatory.
The bioinformatic analysis is well organized and quite clear, and I like the Figures presented in the manuscript. (However，in Figure 6 and Figure 7, there was only title and limited legend, and I think the audience need more information from a detailed legend).
Additional comments: Based on the suggestion above, I wish the author could distinguish the kind of TaSODs that function prominently in biotic or abiotic stress.  It will be valuable for guiding the wheat breeding.


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 MICROBIOTA OF DROSOPHILA SUZUKII INFLUENCES THE LARVAL DEVELOPMENT OF DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is very well written. It is concise, well planned and executed. The key findings and their implications in Drosophila ecology through the microbiota comes through.
Experimental design: In the Introduction section, line 59 gives the impression that the interaction of D. suzukii with its microbiome is the main aim. The actual aim of the project is not introduced until line 75. The main aim of the project should be introduced early on in the Introduction and story line should be build up from there.

Similarly, the abstract can be restructured to highlight the ecological importance of D. suzukii and D. melanogaster interaction, and why the microbiome is a good tool to study that.

In the methods section, the statistical tests in the statistical packages are not mentioned.
Only the proportion of larvae is given in Figure 5. Please add the number of larvae used for feeding experiment in methods section.
Validity of the findings: The results section "Impact of microbiota on larval development in Drosophila" can be broken down into two sub-headings, namely bacteria and yeast.

Line 223- separate the results of yeasts isolated from D. suzukii and D. melanogaster.

The discussion section can be restructured. For example, the effects of bacteria on larval development is introduced in line 290 but discussed in line 339. Finish one sub-topic and then move to another one. Also add the figure number in parenthesis in lines discussing the result.

Mention the importance of microbiome as a tool and aim of studying the interactions between Drosohila species in Conclusion section to highlight the importance of the study.
Additional comments: The paper is very well structured and engaging. The methods are clearly explained, results are good quality with relevant figures. The results are well discussed with citations from recent literature. The study is sound and exciting.


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 MICROBIOTA OF DROSOPHILA SUZUKII INFLUENCES THE LARVAL DEVELOPMENT OF DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Line 204-205: The statement “Monitoring took place a minimum of every four days, and fresh bait was introduced at the same interval” does not correspond to the dates provided in the raw data excel sheet supplement.

Line 213 (beginning with ‘as’) to line 221 (Douglas, 2014) does not belong in the results section and should be moved to the intro or discussion.

Figure 2: It is unclear why figure 2 is a main figure, as opposed to a supplemental figure, as there is not discussion of the significance of bacteria having a higher CFU count relative to yeast anywhere in the paper. Even more, figure 2 is not even mentioned in the text of the paper, and the only mention of such findings are in lines 195-196. It is recommended that this figure be moved to supplemental files.

Figures 3 and 4: The plots of figures 3 and 4 are quite difficult to look at and read. First, the black line denoting controls is very difficult to see, particularly in graphs with blue labels, as well as in figure 3 overall. It is suggested to take a step back and think of an alternative way to present these findings that may be easier for the reader to take in. At minimum, the control line should be better defined.
Experimental design: Although the study design appears well thought out, the flow is difficult to follow and is not easily grasped unless one reads the entire paper repeatedly.
•	To help readers to more quickly comprehend the study design, a short summary (or even better, a figure) describing an overview of the methods in the beginning of the methods section would help the reader to better follow the design.
•	You often leave steps and justifications out of your methods (see specific examples below), and then talk about them in the results. Specific examples of incomplete method descriptions are:
•	Lines 108-118: Were homogenization beads reused and cleaned between homogenizations? If so, using what protocol?
•	Lines 117: How were colonies of interest determined? More specific details needed about how you identified the different yeast and bacteria species and why you selected them. These answers can eventually be found in lines 198-200 of the methods, where you state that preference was given to most prevalent types. This should be first stated in the methods section. Additionally, why was preference given to prevalence, particularly in cultured conditions?
•	Lines 123-124: What specific regions of rRNA were sequenced? You specify bacteria in results (lines 201-202), but this should be stated in the methods.
•	Lines 123-132: Authors should provide citations for choosing the hypervariable regions selected for 16s and ITS.
•	Lines 136-137: Although you specify that Sanger sequencing was used in the results (lines 200-202), this should be clearly stated in the methods section. Otherwise, the reader is left wondering the method used for sequencing.
•	Lines 137-138: How was the highest quality sequence chosen?
•	Lines 142-143: What was the source of the Canton S D. melanogaster flies?

Lines 77-78: Authors should be more specific in this sentence to describe development time from dechorionated embryo to pupation, as it is not immediately obvious.

Lines 108-111. It should be noted whether flies of interest included both males and females.

Lines 108-177/Supplement: How many isolates of each microbial species were tested on larval development time? You note that Starmerella bacillaris induced delayed development from two separate isolates, and it is clear that multiple experiments have been conducted based on the text within your main figures. However, the specifics of replication should be included in the Supplementary Raw Data file as well as in the methods section.
Validity of the findings: Generally, the overall findings, discussion, and conclusion appear valid, with one small addition suggested for the discussion (see below). Additionally, there is some missing information from the supplementary raw data file, which are needed for external investigators to be able to independently reassess the findings (see below).

The supplementary Raw Data file
•	The Supplementary Raw Data File as a whole would benefit by having a key for each tab. In particular, it is impossible to reanalyze the data or viably recreate any figures with the information provided for figures 3 and 4, particularly with regards to what Treatment letters denote.
•	Figure 5 data does not specify the three independent treatments, leaving it impossible to determine the validity of the experimental design.
•	Figure 6 also does not denote what was measured for each of the three or four independent experiments conducted.

Drosophila melanogaster larvae showed delayed development time in response to Starmerella bacillaris exposure, which you support with additional work demonstrating indigestibility of S. bacillaris in the larval gut. Yet, you also state that the flies reared in this experiment do not depend on the mono-associated microorganisms for sustenance, as experiments were performed on a nutrient-rich laboratory diet rather than fruit-based substrates (lines 355-358). Given this, it would be beneficial to discuss this discrepancy, even if briefly, in the discussion section.
Additional comments: The primary objective of this paper was examine the influence of mono-associated yeast and bacteria species originally derived from Drosophila suzukii hosts on Drosophila melanogaster development time (i.e. from first instar to pupation). Additionally, the authors identified  the presence of D. suzukii in Oswego County, NY. The noteworthy finding demonstrated that the mono-associated yeast species, S. bacillaris (obtained from D. suzukii) significantly delayed D. melanogaster larval development, which was attributed to indigestibility of S. bacillaris by the larval gut of D. melanogaster, thus providing poor nutritional value to larva.

Overall, the experiment appears to be well thought out and appropriately executed. I believe this paper is a strong candidate for publication, with only a few concerns. Primarily, the methods are quite difficult to follow as written (see “Experimental Design” section), as much of the split between the methods and results sections, and the supporting documentation is missing a few pieces of data in order for the experiment to be reproducible by another investigator (see “Validity of Findings” section). The other comments are very minor in comparison and include additional details/specifics needed (see “Basic Reporting” and “Experimental Design” sections), and grammatical and typo issues (see below).

Grammatically confusing suggestions:
•	Line 42: The word ‘consummate’ is not clear here in the context of the remainder of the sentence. Clarify why being a consummate model organism is important to studying host-microbe interactions or use a more appropriate adjective.
•	Line 319-320: This sentence would benefit from an oxford comma following “protein starved females”, as it is confusing when reading whether it is all males or only protein starved males that prefer vinegar-based bates.

Typos:
•	Line 119. The letter L in liquid is bolded.
•	Line 146. Missing end parenthesis ).
•	Line 147. Missing ‘at’… “Optical densities… were measured (at) 600nm.”


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 MICROBIOTA OF DROSOPHILA SUZUKII INFLUENCES THE LARVAL DEVELOPMENT OF DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Attached
Experimental design: Attached
Validity of the findings: Attached
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: DECREASE IN WALKING SPEED INCREASES HIP MOMENT IMPULSE IN THE FRONTAL PLANE DURING THE STANCE PHASE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: While I understand why the authors focused on the hip moment at the frontal plane, the manuscript would potentially have a greater impact (contribution to the scientific community) if the same analysis was performed for the knee moment (to confirm previous results from the literature). Also, there is the classic concept of support moment at the sagittal plane (by D. Winter), why not explore that for the frontal plane?

The authors recognize the speculative nature of their rationale regarding the link between their analysis of healthy subjects and the implications to hip osteoarthritis, but I think the last lines of the abstract complete ignores the study limitations and the recommendation "to maintain a general walking speed to delay the progression of hip osteoarthritis" is still too speculative.

Lines 223-227:
"The ratios of normalized hip moment impulse in the frontal plane increased sharply with
a decrease in walking speed (Fig. 2) compared to those of hip moment impulse in the frontal
plane. From this thing, we consider that it important to normalize hip moment impulse in the
frontal plane by step length. Furthermore, we consider that this result suggests the importance of
maintaining normal step length to prevent the progression of hip osteoarthritis."
The justification for using normalized hip moment impulse simply because it amplifies the observed difference between different speeds is not enough (I felt this is the argument in this paragraph). I suggest to develop more this rationale using again the concept of daily cumulative load mentioned earlier.


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: DECREASE IN WALKING SPEED INCREASES HIP MOMENT IMPULSE IN THE FRONTAL PLANE DURING THE STANCE PHASE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: First I would thank authors for the effort they made in this work. This is a well-written paper and may enrich the knowledge about the effect of walking speed and the progression of OA.

I have minor comments that may need to be addressed:
- authors may need to define the non-dimensional speed to make it clearer and to differentiate it from walking speed.
- I think authors need to provide interpretation on the non-linearity of relationship between walking speed and hip moment impulse. and what does that mean?
- line 43: remove the repeated word  "surface"
- line 221: do you mean "high" instead of "low" ?
- the reason normalizing the hip moment impulse to step length is not convincing, pointing to the equations in Figure 1 the step length is expected to affect  (increase or decrease)the cumulative hip impulse because it is used to calculate the number of steps but I don't think this is the case for normalizing hip moment impulse.
- regarding the equations in figure 1, clarify the reason for multiplying with body mass despite that the impulse is already normalized  to body mass?
- line 225: add "is" before "important to normalize...."
- authors may comment on the effect of reduced walking speed on cadence; the slow walking may be achieved with less number of steps and this may reduce the cumulative hip moment impulse


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: BIBLIOGRAPHIC REVISION OF MESACANTHION FILIPJEV, 1927 (NEMATODA: THORACOSTOMOPSIDAE) WITH DESCRIPTION OF A NEW SPECIES FROM JEJU ISLAND, SOUTH KOREA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: Methods are correct and  can be replicate.
Validity of the findings: I think the species is a new one, but the revision (bibliographic) is not useful without a more complete Mesacanthion general key or a table with male morphological measurements separate from females. The differential diagnosis is not well done and require more investigation.

If a key is included part of tables information can be go to supplementary material.

The head drawing are not clear, some details as lips configuration, details of mandibles and cephalic capsule are not included. The drawings and photos of spicules and gubernaculum  are not enough to discern the presence of a seam.
Additional comments: Dear authors, I think you have a new Mesacanthion species, but much work and investigation are needed to demonstrate it. I include a list of corrections and doubts (following lines) that I had during the review of your paper. I hope this help you to elaborate a improved paper. The Mesacanthion revision must be improved with a more complete key that include a higher number of species or all.

Title
This is not a revision of Mesacanthion! From Material and methods you do not mention any visit to museums collections where original specimens are observed or you asked to museum collections for observe original material. This is a kind of bibliographic revision, but including a key only for four species! So neither is a bibliographic revision of Mesacanthion. To do a real bibliographic revision you must to detail the history of each species plus all the keys that have been done and offer a new key of Mesacanthion to help to understanding of this complex group.
You do not include a key for all the species! And the complete table 2 is not useful from taxonomy point of view, because you include measurements of males and females together!

Line 330.
“Lips well developed edges or lips narrowed and distally pointy” This details you describe are not seen in the drawings Fig 2A and 3A and from your drawings, they seems to be different in male than in female. You must to add a face view (light microscope or electronic microscope, SEM photo) of male and female head so this structures can be observed easily, or give detailed draw of this structures. Your written description is not enough if you do not document it. Lips structures are very important in this group and can help you to differentiate your species. How many papillae carry the lips? Are similar on the three lips? Are the same in males than in females?

Line 331
The cephalic capsule is not included in your drawings.
You must add it to show that the cephalic setae are in the midlevel of it.
This is easily to see do with new specimens in glycerin dyed with Bengal rose or Blue Nile (or both) before mounting. Your drawings and SEM photos are not enough.

Line 332.
From SEM photo 5B it is obvious that cephalic capsule is not vaguely define, because the contours are seen (but this is not enough), so please add new figure with the details of cephalic capsule. Specially the position of cephalic setae and amphids in relation to the cephalic capsule. If you could measure the cephalic capsule you can draw it!

Line 335.
“Mandible consisting of two rods distancing from one another anteriorly joined by anterior rod.”
How are the lateral edges of the anterior rod of mandibles? The mandibles have pointed teeth usually in the anterior arched rod, this teeth can be pointed to the lumen or laterally. They are only seen in apical view or sometimes in lateral view. In your drawing 3A in lateral view they seem to be pointed to the lumen! So please look carefully and give and an enlarged drawing with this important detail that is not included in your description.

Line 338.
Amphideal flap, inverse triangular, just posterior to the lateral outer labial seta at level of posterior end of cephalic capsule (Fig. 5B)
Are you sure it is an amphid? In M. pannosum, Wieser 1959 there are similar structures, and they are interpreted as modifications of cervical setae. In your SEM photo is easily seen that this triangular flap is in the same place of the sub lateral first crown, cervical setae. Please discuss this!
If this structure is not an amphid, where is the amphid? Please add a better drawing of cephalic capsule and amphid position. The amphid in this genus, in general, it is found in sub lateral position, at the end of the cephalic capsule. Could be overlapped with triangular flap?

Line 338
What are the two holes observed in SEM photo 5B? In Fig 5B, between the two crowns of cervical setae there are two pores. You must explain and describe what they are. It is a beautiful photo!

Line 345.
I cannot see the seam. There are a constriction between capitulum and spicule that is usually found in Mesacanthion and other related genera. In figure 2B the seam is not draw. From photos 4A and 4B I see a massive gubernaculum covering the spicule and a constriction in the proximal end of the gubernaculum. This is the seam you mention? Please add an enlarged figure with the details of the seam you see. Comparing with the other three species with real seam, your species is very different!

Line 377.
Differential diagnosis: The new species is most similar to M. ditlevseni as they both share
striking resemblance in overall morphology, including the stout and strongly based inner labial setae, similarly shaped gubernaculum (which was thought to be peculiar at the time of description of M. ditlevseni), as well as their body ratio being within range from one another (a, b, and c’). Probably this is true, but there are other species that are related. In M. ditlevseni the seam on the spicule in well seen in the middle of the spicule and the gubernaculum is triangular but short, very different to yours. I think that another related species is M. pannosum Wieser, 1959, because it has pointed lips, cervical flaps, but no have seam. The presence or not of the seam probably is not a good diagnostic character because it appear in some species of Mesacanthion, in Fleuronema and in Paramesacanthion, three genera very different. I think the presence of flap cervical setae is important!

Line 397.
“Amphideal flap observed for the first time in the genus.”
This is not true, see M. pannosum, Wieser, 1959.

Line 410.
I think this key have no sense and is not useful.
I think is wrong to include your species in this group that probably is not a real group, because the seam appear in very different genera! To demonstrate the seam probably you need to take more photos to other male specimens and draw them properly. The seam you mention: could be the end of a massive gubernaculum that for diffraction deform the spicule?
My suggestion if you want to do a real bibliographic revision that would be useful to future taxonomy is to do a new males key including all species Mesacanthion (this is the best but complicate) or at least all those species of Mesacanthion having spicules smaller than 2 anal diameters (*), independently of having or not seam. I think they are around 21 species, but probably I am wrong you must to check.
(*) Despite this is a relative measure and can be discussed, from my experience in very old description species, it is more reliable than measurement in microns.

Line 420.
From my point of view your species is related to M. pannosum Wieser, 1959 and to other species with spicule length smaller than 2 anal diameters, also it is related to M. ditlevseni (Filipjev, 1927) Gerlach & Riemann, 1974. You must do a new discussion basing it on your new key.

Figures
Fig. 1
OK
Fig. 2
Add a face view of male head, add draw of mandibles, add draw of cephalic capsule and position of cephalic setae and amphids, and see comment in text.
Fig. 3
If you have material idem to male. But if not you can obviate this.
Fig. 4
Add a detailed figure with the seam or observe if you interpreted it correctly.
Fig. 5
Explain in text all the details observed in the SEM photo.
Fig. 6
Take out this figure it has no sense!
Table 1
OK
Table 2
“Males and females joined, morphometric values rounded”
This is terrible confusing and is not useful for taxonomy, you must to separate measurements of males and females. Female’s variability in fertile stage is great!
You can do it in one table or separate tables. You must add one or both tables in supplementary material, it has no sense to include in text if you add a good key.


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: BIBLIOGRAPHIC REVISION OF MESACANTHION FILIPJEV, 1927 (NEMATODA: THORACOSTOMOPSIDAE) WITH DESCRIPTION OF A NEW SPECIES FROM JEJU ISLAND, SOUTH KOREA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors present a relevant and meaningful study, however it is not yet clear the choice of the genus. I suggest describing in more detail the genus under revision both in the abstract as in the introduction. Specially in the abstract, the most important findings of the revision were not mentioned. A brief explanation about the changes of the systematics of Mesacanthion could enrich the introduction.
     The English used throughout the article must be revised, since the comprehension of some phrases was not clear (e.g. “Diagnosis of the genus Mesacanthion provided by Smol et al. 2014, which provides sufficient description as is, was given a slight update based on our review and findings”).
     The figures have sufficient resolution and appropriated descriptions and labels, with minor changes. There are references in-text citations with and without commas.
Experimental design: The methodology could be differently structured, dividing it in three subsections (e.g. 1 – field surveys and morphological study; 2 – systematic revision; and 3 – nomenclatural acts). The methodology used for the revision of Mesacanthion must be detailed.
Validity of the findings: I suggest to better structure and to cite references in the diagnosis and in the discussion of the diagnosis of Mesacanthion. A special attention must be dedicated when considering invalidate any species, mainly when the type material was not consulted. The arguments must be very convincing in making this decision. I understand that the taxonomic validity of M. ungulatum needs a further investigation.
Additional comments: Other details are specified in the PDF document.


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: BIBLIOGRAPHIC REVISION OF MESACANTHION FILIPJEV, 1927 (NEMATODA: THORACOSTOMOPSIDAE) WITH DESCRIPTION OF A NEW SPECIES FROM JEJU ISLAND, SOUTH KOREA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript  has been corrected. Literature provided and added is correct.
Only two simple  grammar mistakes  and one key modification need to be corrected. Please see manuscript attached.
Experimental design: I am sure that now the new species is well described.
The changes added in figures, photos and in descriptions are good now.
I agree with authors decisions in particular in key construction. But please correct lines 606-607 in the Mesacanthion key, you must to inform that you are speaking of precloacal sub ventral setae. Please see manuscript attached.
Validity of the findings: I am sure that now the new species is well described.
Additional comments: Dear authors your paper now is complete and can be published because your new species is well characterized. I recognize your effort to improve the manuscript. Please correct the three mistakes noted in the manuscript attached. From my point of view  the paper must be accepted.


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: BIBLIOGRAPHIC REVISION OF MESACANTHION FILIPJEV, 1927 (NEMATODA: THORACOSTOMOPSIDAE) WITH DESCRIPTION OF A NEW SPECIES FROM JEJU ISLAND, SOUTH KOREA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: No additional comments