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: QUANTIFYING THE EFFECTS OF DELISTING WOLVES AFTER THE FIRST STATE BEGAN LETHAL MANAGEMENT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Excellent English, clearly written.  Although a substantial number of references are cited, the literature was selected and does not include any of the papers showing how wolf harvests can be sustainable at much higher levels than reported here.  The "hypothesis" is not sound and fails on any criteria for an experiment, i.e., no replication, no randomization, and no controls.
Experimental design: There is no experimental design, only flawed population models that are pure speculation.
Validity of the findings: Fundamentally flawed.
Additional comments: Wolves were delisted by the Donald Trump administration, returning management authority to the states.  Wisconsin was quick to open a hunt because wolf numbers were substantially above their management target.  The response by hunters was extraordinary and within 3 days hunters had killed many more wolves than was intended by the state.  Because of this, Tewes et al. make an argument that state jurisdictions cannot be trusted with sound wolf management and claim that a sustained population of wolves cannot be maintained without federal intervention.  They make up some numerical examples that are hypothetical and fail to include structural features in a population model, e.g., density dependence, that are essential for sound management of sustainable harvesting.  The authors clearly have an agenda to attack the State of Wisconsin for its wolf management program and imply that management must return to federal protection.
Line 21:  data is plural and this sentence grammatically incorrect
Line 30:  cryptic poaching is not estimated using any statistically reliable method and attributing extensive mortality to this unknown is not defensible.
Line 36:  the data and modeling exercise certainly cannot “debunk” the state’s interpretation
Line 56:  a number of jurisdictions in North America have sustained culling of wolves and these data are not evaluated.
Line 66:  lethal removal of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains and in Canada contradict this claim.
Line 75:  this is not a robust case study.  Instead it is a one off where the hunter kill was much higher than anticipated by the State, and resulted in much higher kill than anticipated by the State.  Based on experience in the Rocky Mountains, the state had every reason to expect that they could achieve their harvest objective.  Their mistake does not constitute a robust case study.
Line 90:  somehow I find it peculiar that the media would be a more credible source of population data than the state responsible for management.
Line 103: given that the hunt was just last fall, to conclude that the number of wolves has been reduced substantially is simply not credible.
Line 130:  the population growth scenarios are just made up and cannot be regarded as a defensible analysis.
Line 155:  the authors do not have more recent estimates because the state prohibits harassing hunters.  Very strange logic.
Line 189:  there is no substance to these claims of cryptic poaching and excess human-cased mortality.  Pure speculation.
Line 194:  it is well established that young of the year have higher mortality than adults.


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: QUANTIFYING THE EFFECTS OF DELISTING WOLVES AFTER THE FIRST STATE BEGAN LETHAL MANAGEMENT
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: My prior assessment was that this manuscript takes a simple but clear approach to assessing whether policies adopted by the state of Wisconsin after delisting of the wolf were likely to achieve a stated goal of maintaining constant population size.  As before, I feel that the model's structure, assumptions and parameterization are clear and make use of public data in a useful manner.  The question of identifying the consequences of dramatic and rapid changes in policy with changes in jurisdiction is important and timely.  The additions and revisions in this version have considered and directly addressed prior comments.
Experimental design: As noted previously, the use of CIFs fit to data on disappearance rates is well justified, and the combination of these results with simple, direct estimates from agency reports of population size and growth rates is logically applied and well explained.
Validity of the findings: I find the revisions appropriate and well explained.  All comments have been addressed, including some that seemed to me to be difficult to address because (in my opinion) they were highly critical without providing clear explanations or citations.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: GENETIC ANALYSIS AND POPULATION STRUCTURE OF WILD AND CULTIVATED WISHBONE FLOWER (TORENIA FOURNIERI LIND.) LINES RELATED TO SPECIFIC FLORAL COLOR
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The English language should be improved to facilitate the understanding of the text.
a.	There is an excess of phrases in passive form or with a word ordering that results difficult to understand. Two examples could be found on lines 311-312 and 447-450.
b.	I also think that the text could be lightened by avoiding the continuous repetitive use of both the symbol (A, B…) and the name of the population. For example, on lines 328-346, at least the second time populations are named it could be just by their symbol.
c.	Some sentences need to be connected with their preceding ones. For example, sentence beginning at line 82.

Figures are all relevant and in general of high quality. Nevertheless, they could be improved in the following ways:
a.	Figure 1. The red lettering of the two wild populations don’t stand out enough
b.	Figure 3. Why are four accessions from the R population specifically indicated?
c.	Figure 6. Bar labels are hard to read. Perhaps the figure could be divided into groups of 48 accessions (instead of 50), thereby increasing the size of the letters and also leaving entire populations in the same row.

I thank the authors for providing the raw data as images of the electrophoretic gels. However, I would also appreciate if they could indicate with a key which band corresponds to each one of those mentioned in Table_S3.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: My main concern in this work is that the comparison of cultivated (T. fournieri) and wild populations (T. concolor) is between different species. Is it to be understood that the authors may have had problems obtaining samples from wild populations of T. fournieri due to their natural range? Otherwise this procedure would not be justified. In case of not being able to obtain the T. fournieri wild samples, I believe that the text should make two aspects clear: 1) justify why the comparison of cultivated and wild populations of these two species can be informative and 2) in the discussion indicate that when analyzing the results, it should be noted that two different species are being compared.
Additional comments: The manuscript by Guan, Song et al. “Genetic variation and population structure of wild and cultivated wishbone flower (Torenia fournieri Lind.) populations” analyses the genotype of 136 accession from 17 populations of Torenia using the retrotransposon based iPBS marker system. The 148 loci studied revealed that there is a clear genetic differentiation between populations whereas only one of the two wild populations showed high variability between individuals of the same population. The lowest variability within the commercial series should be due to breeding selection, and differences in variability between the two wild populations could be explained by differences in sampling method.

I think studies like this one that compare genetic variation between cultivated and wild populations are very interesting. They provide insight into the effect on genetic variation in a population experiencing a bottleneck in which strong phenotypic selection overlaps.

1.	Nevertheless, as I said before, my main concern in this work is that the comparison of cultivated (T. fournieri) and wild populations (T. concolor) is between different species.

2.	Another concern I have is the behavior of the wild population Q. On the one hand, although it is a wild population, it presents a very low variability that the manuscript indicates could be due to the sampling method. On the other hand, in the PCoA analysis, the Q population is located closer to the cultivated populations of the other species than to the other wild population of its own species and, in the tree in Figure 4, Q and R do not form a monophyletic group. Therefore, I wonder how it was determined to which species each individual belonged. Couldn't it be that the individuals in population Q belonged to T. fournieri?

3.	L262-263. I don’t think that having a total of 148 scorable bands, necessarily indicates a high degree of genetic variability. I understand a scorable band as one that might be detected and that in some individuals is present and in others not. Nevertheless, with only this information, we cannot advance if there is variability within each population and or among populations. Maybe it should be better substitute “which indicated a…” to “and they revealed a…”

4.	L 307 The variation between populations is including the variation between species because two of the 17 populations are T. concolor. AMOVA should also be performed only for the 15 populations of commercial T fornieri.

5.	L442-446 I agree that the specific bands are highly interesting, but, in the results, there is no any information about them. Perhaps the authors are working on a new paper, but some information could be advanced on how many specific bands each population has, and which iPBS are responsible for them.

6.	L. 365 Table 5. As the information in this table 5 can be easily extracted from figure 5 (therefore redundant), I think this table could be moved to the supplementary material.

Minor comments and typos:

L. 82-83. This phrase needs some connector with the preceding phrases. Maybe “Nevertheless” or “However”.

L.84. The first sentence “in relation to interspecific hybrids” sounds strange when obtaining tetraploid plants of T. fournier is explained bellow. These individuals are not interspecific hybrids.
Maybe it could be changed by something like “In relation to new (or artificial) variants”

L. 120 Use italics for the name of the locus "plena"

L.126. Check the spelling of the plant hormone. It should be “forchlorfenuron”

L. 139 Change “SSR” to “microsatellite” or “simple sequence repeat”. This name is not used more in the text and is not necessary the use of abbreviations that difficult the understanding.

L. 162. Eliminate “Lindl.” It has been already referred before in L 59.

L. 202 Change “examined manually” to “visually examined”

L. 205 The meaning of PIC should be explained.

L 222 – L 232. The whole paragraph is very confusing
•	Line 222 change “accordingly” to “respectively”
•	L 224-225 I don’t understand how there could be any gap or missing data. From Table 1, I know each individual should have data for 148 loci.
•	It’s not clear to me which kind of tree the authors obtained: parsimony, UPGMA, MCL?
•	L.232 Last sentence seems the explanation of part of a figure.

L. 266 Table 1 only presents data for the commercial series. It should also show the same data for the wild populations

L. 267 Change “and primer 2377” to “while primer 2377”.

L. 277-281. The list of the populations should be moved to the material and methods section. This change will allow understand better in the material and methods section why the wild populations received their names of Q and R.

Line 293 “PhiPT matric values” eliminate “matric”

Line 294 Change “population PhiPT” to “population PhiPT values”

L 295 Rewrite this sentence. The values don’t vary “from x and y” The reader expects “from x to y” and only two values.

L. 312 Change “coordinate” to “component”

L328-346. (and also, through the whole text in general). The correspondence between letters and population origin could be used to lighten the text, eliminating the full name of the population.

L. 447-450. Change the order in the sentence, and use italics for the variable symbols, as:
“From among the 17 Torenia populations tested, the lowest values of Na (number of different alleles), Ne (the number of effective alleles), I (Shannon’s information index), He (expected heterozygosity), and uHe (unbiased expected heterozygosity) were for population J (Kauai: White) and the highest for population R (wild: Xichou).”

L. 454-455. Use the statistic symbols instead of their full names. They have been described just two sentences before.

L.456 Please, clarify that the differences in the results correspond to the comparison with other genera. I was surprised to find no further discussion on this fact, and only realized why after checking all the references made at this point. Thus, I propose to change “are considerably less than that reported previously by” to “are considerably less than that reported previously in other genera of plants by”


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

Input:
Title: GENETIC ANALYSIS AND POPULATION STRUCTURE OF WILD AND CULTIVATED WISHBONE FLOWER (TORENIA FOURNIERI LIND.) LINES RELATED TO SPECIFIC FLORAL COLOR
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors analyzed 136 accessions which were selected from 17 populations of two Torenia species with iPBS markers. These cultivated accessions were obtained from markets and the wilds from two different subtropical habitats in southern China.
The experiments were performed well and the results seem good. The authors tried to address every molecular aspect of the accessions based on iPBS markers.
The manuscript is well-written, but some minor corrections are needed in the text. See the attached PDF file.

The authors' literature review about Torenia is quite detailed. This literature is presented in the introduction section.
All references are correctly presented in the reference list.
All raw data about gel pictures and band scoring with iPBS studies were presented as supplementary files.

The results of the study were relevant to the authors' aim.
Experimental design: This study is the first to investigate the genetic structure of Torenia accession with iPBS markers. The accessions used in the study were obtained from two Torenia species.

Examination of genetic diversity intra- and interspecies with the data obtained from iPBS analysis in the study will make the results of the study more meaningful.

All analyzes were matched to evaluate a dominant DNA marker system.

The temperatures of the iPBS primers have been chosen quite differently from the original described publication, Kalendar et al. (2010).

iPBS primers with relatively short sequences with lowered annealing temperatures would result in a considerably increased probability of random linking outside of the specific region for which they were designed. This raises the suspicion that it is likely to cause the primers to act as if they were RAPD primers.

Please give the axis values in the figure related to the principal coordinate analysis.
Validity of the findings: The findings are listed quite clearly. Statistical analyzes were selected in accordance with the analysis.

When I examined the iPBS band profiles presented as supplementary agarose gel photos stated to belong to accessions 1-48, I could not say to see the grouping in the dendrogram, the principal coordinate analysis, and Bar plots. However, I know well that there are differences between eyes in gel scoring.
Additional comments: I can say that I enjoyed reviewing the article titled "Genetic variation and population structure of wild and cultivated wishbone flower (Torenia fournieri Lind.) Populations".


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

Input:
Title: GENETIC ANALYSIS AND POPULATION STRUCTURE OF WILD AND CULTIVATED WISHBONE FLOWER (TORENIA FOURNIERI LIND.) LINES RELATED TO SPECIFIC FLORAL COLOR
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: In this study, the authors use the iPBS transposon-based marker system to capture genetic diversity among 15 cultivated lines of Torrenia fournieri and two wild-collected populations of T. concolor. The motivating questions for collecting these data are not developed in the background or introduction sections of the manuscript and multiple conclusions drawn in the discussion are not well supported by the results.

In terms of basic reporting, I think the manuscript falls short in these three specific areas:

Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses.

Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.

Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.

Here are more specific points:
1.	The authors need to provide clear framework (in abstract/background section) for why population structure/diversity is an important question among cultivated accessions of this group. This is not presented in the background section and in the lengthy introduction, only historical information about Torrenia is presented, but not clear set of questions that can be addressed by the data being collected. Here are some possible questions:
Do cultivated lines show a pattern of genetic similarity that correlates with flower color or other phenotypic characteristics? Do cultivated lines show a pattern of genetic similarity that informs on future breeding strategies? Is genetic diversity within cultivated lines similar to that found in natural populations from a closely related species? These are just some thoughts on how to unite the data with specific questions.

2.	The authors should explain why the wild population are from a different species. How distantly related is T. concolor to T. fournieri? What is gained by including a separate species? Why were no wild populations of T. fournieri included which might have allowed the authors to address the specific origins of cultivated lines?

3.	Starting at line 146: our objectives were to investigate the genetic pattern, population structure and genetic relationships among 136 Torenia accessions including 15 T. fournieri populations from 3 commercial series (Duchess, Kauai, Little Kiss) and two wild T. concolor populations sampled by different methods from two distant sites. Our overall aim was to estimate the selective pressure and provide a practical model for the genetic analysis of Torenia populations so as to better enable selective breeding in the future.
The data collected are not sufficient or appropriate for estimating selective pressures imposed during cultivation.

4.	Starting at line 389: indicate that some morphological traits such as the population floral colors could be used as an associated genotypic identification, thereby potentially guiding breeding practices that target such traits.
Perhaps this is a guiding question of the study as well?

5.	Starting at line 398: Specifically, the Phi-statistics analysis we used showed the correlation of some genes or loci within the subdivided populations. In particular, the genetic pattern and structure of the wild population Q (selected from one site) was similar to the 15 commercial populations, but was significantly different from the other wild population R (selected from multi sites in the region). This indicates the selective pressure during  the breeding practices leading to these 15 commercial populations.
These data do not inform on selective pressures during cultivation. Most likely, these differences in genetic diversity result from bottleneck/drift effects with bringing a small number of individuals into cultivation. The loci sampled are not loci on which selection acted during cultivation, at least there is no data to suggest that they are cultivation loci.

6.	Starting at line 160: 200 seedlings for each cultivar were germinated first, and eight plants were randomly selected to represent individual populations of the cultivar.
This is an issue throughout. Selecting 8 plants from a seed package is not standard population level sampling. I think the authors should not call these “populations” but instead call them “cultivated lines”.

7.	Starting at line 409: In our study, correlations among populations via our PCoA analysis showed interesting patterns. For instance, there were more negative correlations among the populations that included Q (wild: Lipu Blue), R (wild: Xichou Blue), I (Kauai: Lemon Drop), K (Little Kiss: White), M (Little Kiss: Blue and White), N (Little Kiss: Rose Picotee), and P (Little Kiss: Blue).
PCA provides clustering information, not correlation. This discussion section needs to be re-worked. I think what the authors mean is that much of the variance in genotype among lines is due to differences between certain sets of lines (the lines that are most distant from one another on PCA 1. But they need to write their discussion using the proper terminology of PCA.

8.	Starting at line 412: Since blue is the common wild type of floral color for T. fournieri and T. conclor, such negative correlations could be due to a high content of the wild genetic background within these populations.
Again, PCA is not a correlation analysis. Also, if each cultivated line has similar reduction in diversity/heterozygosity from a bottleneck event, each will retain a similar (but different from each other) content of the wild genetic diversity.

9.	Starting at line 419: In relation to their specific floral color, it could be concluded that these populations have a more positive effect on determining the relevant genetic constituents. Consequently, these results from our population genetic analyses could be used to target the future selection of desired traits in Torenia breeding.
This statement requires more explanation.

10.	Starting from line 428: Results from our study indicated that the wild population Q (Lipu: Blue) is more closely related to populations M (Little Kiss: Blue and White), N (Little Kiss: Rose Picotee), and P (Little Kiss: Blue) and they are likely therefore to have had a common ancestor.
Not true, according to your dendrogram, all cultivated varieties are equally related to Q. Perhaps you are referring to overall genetic similarity from the PCA analysis? Overall similarity is different from common ancestry.

11.	Starting at line 458: Our lower values indicate significant inbreeding in the 15 Torenia series that have been released, and in the wild population Q (wild: Lipu Blue). This suggests either some kind of selective pressure or the effect of selection during breeding practices.
Your data as presented do not inform on inbreeding coefficients or selective pressures. Low genetic diversity/heterozygosity most likely points to bottleneck/drift effects.

12.	Please define PIC – polymorphic informative content
Experimental design: As described above, the target of "Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap." has not been met.
Validity of the findings: As described above, the target of "Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results." has not been met.
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: THE EFFECTS OF HIP- AND ANKLE-FOCUSED EXERCISE INTERVENTION ON DYNAMIC KNEE VALGUS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: -	The introduction shows context and literature is well referenced.
-	The language is in many circumstances unclear and ambiguous and needs improvement.
-	The article is well structured. The table needs proper formatting.
-	The methods are mostly described with sufficient detail.
Experimental design: -	1) The research question is too loosely defined, including all types of exercise interventions (strength training, balance training, explosive training…), participants (age, sex, sport, training experience, with and without knee pain), measurement methods for assessing DKV (visual inspection, motion capture, 2D analysis…), and testing tasks (step-up, single-leg squat, drop jump, gait…), making it difficult to produce valid results and draw meaningful conclusions. In addition, the outcome measures are not well defined, including both knee kinematics, knee valgus angle, knee abduction moment…
-	2) It is not clear why this review is needed and how it differs from previous systematic reviews assessing the effect of training interventions on DKV (e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6604048/ ). Also, the necessity of focusing on top-down or bottom-up kinetic chains is not clear and not followed up upon in the discussion. It is not clear how this review fills an identified knowledge gap.
Validity of the findings: -	Poor synthesis of study results and respective recommendations.
-	The discussion is mostly a summary of the identified studies and their limitations.
-	Conclusions are not well stated and not limited to supporting results.
Additional comments: -	I read this manuscript with great interest and I commend the authors for their extensive work. The topic is of great importance for everyone involved in preventive training of knee injuries. However, this systematic review has important methodological limitations as highlighted 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: THE EFFECTS OF HIP- AND ANKLE-FOCUSED EXERCISE INTERVENTION ON DYNAMIC KNEE VALGUS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I am assuming Table 1 in it's current format is not the final version of what will be published. It's current form is stretched over multiple pages, with improper formatting on the column width, which splits words, has the text centered incorrectly etc. I believe this would be fixed after the paper is accepted, but please double check this.
Experimental design: My two big, overall methods questions are:

1) I think some context here as to why “knee abduction” was not used as a search term is warranted. This could just be a comment back to the reviewer. But I would like to know why this wasn’t used, and if you believe this could impact the implications of your systematic review?

2) Do you think it is appropriate to include a study (Horsak et al. 2019) that focused on obese children as part of the 8 studies included in the review? The reason I ask this is because obesity is a special population where the obesity component is one of the primary drivers behind DKV. Comparing interventions with obese children to the other 7 studies that feature average-weight adults that are recreationally active might not be an appropriate comparison.
Validity of the findings: An overall comment for both the discussion and conclusion: In L94 – 96 of the Introduction, the point is made that there has been no systematic review that has focused on exercise interventions from a top-down or bottom-up perspective. In the discussion, the 8 studies used in the review are identified as top-down or bottom-up. However, there is no discussion by the authors on their perspective of if a top-down or bottom-up approach is more appropriate when using exercise interventions to improve DKV. Since this emphasis was made in the Introduction, a few sentences to acknowledge and discuss this should be added to the Discussion or Conclusion section. This would greatly strengthen the systematic review.
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: THE EFFECTS OF HIP- AND ANKLE-FOCUSED EXERCISE INTERVENTION ON DYNAMIC KNEE VALGUS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: N/A
Experimental design: N/A
Validity of the findings: N/A
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: DESCRIPTION OF THREE SPECIES OF OPHIOPLINTHACIDS, INCLUDING A NEW SPECIES, FROM A DEEP SEAMOUNT IN THE NORTHWEST PACIFIC OCEAN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript by Chen et al is of three ophiuroid species in the genus Ophioplinthaca that have been discovered on a seamount in the NW Pacific Ocean, one of which is described as new. I agree that the species is new and it has been well described (with some small exceptions – see on marked pdf). The genetic data has been deposited in Genbank and the new name lodged with ZooBank. The paper is in traditional taxonomic format and (with some minor exceptions – see pdf) the language is clear and concise. The genetic analysis is fine. The figures include light microscope and SEM images of good to excellent quality.
Experimental design: as above
Validity of the findings: as above
Additional comments: The manuscript by Chen et al is of three ophiuroid species in the genus Ophioplinthaca that have been discovered on a seamount in the NW Pacific Ocean, one of which is described as new.
I agree that the species is new and it has been well described (with some small exceptions – see on marked pdf). The genetic data has been deposited in Genbank and the new name lodged with ZooBank. The paper is in traditional taxonomic format and (with some minor exceptions – see pdf) the language is clear and concise. The genetic analysis is fine. The figures include light microscope and SEM images of good to excellent quality. The conclusions do not exceed the data supplied.
I would suggest publication with minor amendments.
I have marked up the PDF with some minor issues and suggested language changes. Some of the more important points include:
•	The terminology for the oral skeleton has recently been updated and clarified in the paper Hendler, G. (2018). "Armed to the teeth: a new paradigm for the buccal skeleton of brittle stars (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea)." Contributions in Science 526: 189–311. The author’s link to this paper is: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lPF6wmyfdFVYxG8xs-WCzmLJ19V8n4Hy/view?usp=sharing
•	On Fig. 5T, 8J, 11J, the arrow pointing to the tentacle notch is incorrect. It should be pointing at the concave border more to the right. See Fig. 1 in Thuy, B. and S. Stöhr (2011) "Lateral arm plate morphology in brittle stars (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea): new perspectives for ophiuroid micropalaeontology and classification." Zootaxa 3013: 1–47.
•	In all three descriptions you describe the ‘tentacle’. I presume by this you mean the tube foot. This is always only one tentacle on either side of the arm segment, so no need to describe this. There is also no point in measuring its size on the preserved animal as this is dependent on how it died. The tube feet are soft and retractable and can vary a lot in size.
•	You use the term “moderate” a lot, but this is a relative term. It has to be moderate compared to something. You are better off replacing relative terms in descriptions with a more precise measurement.


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: DESCRIPTION OF THREE SPECIES OF OPHIOPLINTHACIDS, INCLUDING A NEW SPECIES, FROM A DEEP SEAMOUNT IN THE NORTHWEST PACIFIC OCEAN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This study is valuable in that it provides a classification for a poorly studied seamount animals. The deep-sea brittle star Ophioplinthaca was carefully examined and try to describe a new species. The methods used were generally correct.

However, the results of this study are concentrated on the description of only one new species, and it is somewhat questionable whether the scientific value of this study can be published in PeerJ. I would like to point out the following improvements that need to be made in order for this paper to be published in PeerJ.
Experimental design: The authors describe the morphology of the ossicles, but there is little discussion of them. Of course, I understand that there are few differences in ossicle morphology within the genus, but I would like to see an indication of what ossicles, for example, might be useful as taxonomic characters or not. The figures for SEMs (Figures 5, 8, 11) should show more of the orientation of each ossicle.

In the molecular phylogenetic analysis section, you mention genetic distance and species boundaries, but you do not take into account data from Boissin et al. (2017), probably one of the most recent barcoding studies for brittle star. In the current results, genetic distance differences of up to 6% are considered interspecies differences, which is inconsistent with Boissin et al. (2017). Is this due to differences between shallow-water and deep-water brittle star? It should be possible to discuss this. Also, in Materials and Methods, what algorithm or software did you use to select your model for molecular analysis?

There were a few terms in the description that are not commonly found in normal description of brittle stars. I think this paper would be better to be reviewed by expert on brittle star at its usage of English terminology.
Validity of the findings: You argue to have discovered a new species of Ophioplinthaca, but this study does not detail the morphology of all species in the genus. I recommend that a review of Ophioplinthaca is provided in this paper in order to increase its value as a taxonomic study. At the present stage, Ophioplinthaca grangisquama sp. nov., O. Semele and Ophioplinthaca sp. and their related species are only appearing in the manuscript, so there is little knowledge to be gained by the reader. If you have surveyed the literatures on Ophioplinthaca for all 31 species, you may be able to provide a table summarizing their taxonomic characters or a taxonomic key for all species. Then, please describe the diagnostic character of the new species.
Additional comments: Congratulations on your discovery of new species of Ophioplinthaca. Your discovery is probably true, but I think you need to provide more information on the related species of the new species.


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: DESCRIPTION OF THREE SPECIES OF OPHIOPLINTHACIDS, INCLUDING A NEW SPECIES, FROM A DEEP SEAMOUNT IN THE NORTHWEST PACIFIC OCEAN
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Thank you very much for preparing the revised version. I have looked at the revisions. All of the corrections meet my requirements and I think the manuscript has reached a publishable level. In particular, I think the comparison of the detailed morphology of the internal side of the lateral arm plate and the species character table of Ophioplinthaca are valuable data to be cited in the future.

I have no further comments if the following points are confirmed.

1. Please indicate the location the morphology of the lateral arm plate such as "beak", "digit 1", etc. in Fig 12 as clearly as possible.

2. Please make the "sp. nov" in Table 3 upright.

3. Please add the bibliographic information of Thuy et al (2020) and Na et al (in press) to References.

4. Please show "jmodeltest-2.1.10" and "AIC selection" as method in M & M.
Experimental design: No problem.
Validity of the findings: No problem.
Additional comments: Please see the "basic comment" 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: PHOSPHATE SOLUBILIZING RHIZOBACTERIA ISOLATED FROM JUJUBE ZIZIPHUS LOTUS PLANT STIMULATE WHEAT GERMINATION RATE AND SEEDLINGS GROWTH
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is well structured and presented clearly. However, the text has some minor English errors that must be corrected. Please see "Comments for the author" for sugestions.
Literature references are generally adequate and suficient background/contex is provided.
Experimental design: The paper describes a solid and comprehensive research work that fits the Aims and Scope of the journal. Experimental procedures are adequate and carefully described.
Validity of the findings: The results are presented in an organized way and have been well analyzed. In general, conclusions are well stated but several points need to be clarified or modified. Some examples:
- It is not clear whether the indicated concentrations of heavy metals refer to the elements (Cu, Cd, Ni) or their salts.
- Informations about the experimental procedures are repeated in the Results section.Since they were described in detail in Materials & Methods, there is no need to include them in Results.
- Misleading sentences in Discussion: The data do not allow to conclude on the involvement of siderophores or ammonia production in the increases in shoots and roots length in the experimental conditions employed in the study. The  production of IAA or other phytohormones was most probably involved in those effects.
Several other comments in "Comments for the author".
Additional comments: Line 21 – “jujube plant (Ziziphus lotus)”. The scientific name should be in italics.
Line 22 – “rhizospheric soil” or “rhizosphere”
Line 27-28 and throughout the text – Indole-3-acetic acid, in lower case
Line 31 – “the study of the potential of the isolates for promotion of early plant growth”
Lines 30-31 and throughout the text – Please clarify whether the indicated concentrations of heavy metals refer to the elements (Cu, Cd, Ni) or their salts.
Line 45 – “it is paramount”
Line 50 – “formulating more efficient”
Line 52 – Remove “but”
Line 55 – Replace “belongs” by “belong”
Line 60 – What do you mean by “phosphate solubilisation inorganic acids”? Please correct the sentence.
Line 64 – “are known as potent P solubilising microorganisms”
Line 70 – “(PGPR)”? Not clear why do you refer PGPR here.
Line 73 – “It is one of the major problems in deploying bacterial-based biofertilizers.” Are there experimental evidences for this, or is just speculation? Please provide a reference for this statement.
Line 86 - What do you mean by “inadvertently”?
Lines 96-98 – Sentence incomplete.
Line 102 – “jujube plants (Ziziphus lotus)”. The scientific name should be in italics.
Line 103 – “and, in vitro,”
Line 113 – Suspending, not dissolving
Line 133 – “Non-inoculated medium was used as blank”
Line 140 – Suggestion: “The experiments were performed in triplicate and the results are means of the replicates”
Line 153 and throughout the text – “16S rRNA gene” or “16S rDNA”
Line 153 – polymerase chain reactions (PCR)
L174 – Why 7 days? To ensure that the cultures had reached the stationary phase?
Line 197 – “Plates”
Line 221 – “sterile distilled water”
Line 225 – “were calculated using the following formula:”
Line 249 – “(20.5 mg.L-1)”
Line 254 – Genera, not genius
Line 266 – “tend”. Please give support for this statement.
Line 269 –Replace “confer” by “presented”
Line 274 – What about tetracycline?
Line 279 – I suggest to remove “trace elements” from this sentence.
Line 282 – Did you mean N2NiO6? (Also in Table 3)
Line 295 – Remove ;
Lines 299-303 – This information is already in Materials & Methods and there is no need to repeat it here.
Line 309 - This must be written in another way. Siderophores are best known for binding Fe and for mobilizing soil-immobilized Fe, although they may also contribute to improve the availability of P to plants.
Line 314 – CAS
Line 315 and throughout the text – “sp.” should be written in lowercase and not italic.
Line 320-321 – The Reference (Mahdi et al., 2020) is not adequate here, since it does not demonstrate (with results) what is stated in the sentence.
Line 321 – inhibitor
Line 322 – was
Line 321-323 - This information is already in Materials & Methods and there is no need to repeat it here.
Line 325 – “lowest one,”
Line 327-328 – Section title: “Proteases are not produced by Pseudomonas sp. J153 and J154 and cellulase activity is restricted to Pseudomonas sp. J10, J155 and B. cereus J156”
Line 340 – “… promote the highest rate of wheat seeds germination and seedlings growth”
Line 376 – “IAA is also frequently”
Line 377 – IAA is not a physiological precursor of auxin synthesis.
Line 386 – “…J13 was the…”
Line 386-390 – The sentence in line 387 is misleading. The data do not allow to conclude on the involvement of siderophores in the increases in shoots and roots length in the experimental conditions employed here. The  production of IAA or other phytohormones was most probably involved in those effects.
Line 393-394 – The sentence is not clear, please re-write.
Line 397 – “trait”
Lines 397-400 – Same as above (see comment for lines 386-390).
Line 428 – Replace “trace elements” by “heavy metals”
Line 443-445 – The last part of the sentence (line 445) is not well written.
Line 448 – “jujube plant (Ziziphus lotus).”
Figures 1, 3, 4, 5 – Footnote: “Letters a, b and c highlight significant differences at p < 0.05”. You have more than these letters. Please correct or replace by: “Different letters indicate significant differences at…”
Table 1 – Please include the accession number of the closest sequence in GenBank or SILVA databases.
Table 2 – Footnote: The concentration of chloramphenicol is missing. The abbreviation for streptomycin (Sterp) is misspelling. There is no need to include the abbreviations of tetracycline and streptomycin since they are not mentioned in Table 2.


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: PHOSPHATE SOLUBILIZING RHIZOBACTERIA ISOLATED FROM JUJUBE ZIZIPHUS LOTUS PLANT STIMULATE WHEAT GERMINATION RATE AND SEEDLINGS GROWTH
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: English: correct.
References: correct
Structure: correct
Relevant results: insufficient
Experimental design: Aims and scope: in line
Research question: unfortunately, nothing new!
Investigation performed rigorously with low technical standard. Ethical aspect fine
Methods well described
Validity of the findings: Not enough new elements to interest a large audience
Additional comments: This work on the PSBs is very interesting, but the publication of these intermediate results does not seem to me to meet international standards. Continue to develop inocula with these bacteria and work on longer plant growth times and be sure to highlight the functional role of your inoculates in the effects you will see on plants.


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: PHOSPHATE SOLUBILIZING RHIZOBACTERIA ISOLATED FROM JUJUBE ZIZIPHUS LOTUS PLANT STIMULATE WHEAT GERMINATION RATE AND SEEDLINGS GROWTH
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: English errors were corrected according to sugestions in the previous review.
However, commas are used several times throughout the text as a decimal separator, instead of periods. This should be corrected.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: The previous review drew attention to several aspects that were not clear. These have now been clarified or the text modified according to the suggestions.
Additional comments: The header of Table 2 indicates Table 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: GENOME-WIDE ANALYSIS OF GENETIC DIVERSITY AND ARTIFICIAL SELECTION IN LARGE WHITE PIGS IN RUSSIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This work presents a differentiation analysis between 'old' (2006-2010) and 'recent' (2018-2020) Large White pigs from the Russian federation. The goal was to find regions under potential selective forces that differ between the two groups of populations. A main issue with this approach is that results can be due to different causes other than selection, including drift, random sampling. Nevertheless, the paper contains material and results of interest, but the text must also state potential sources of flase positives and tone down the  implications. As in many studies of this kind, genes that fall within the positive selection category are picked to make a story but reproducibility tend to be low.
Experimental design: A main drawback with this study is that there does not seem to be a big span between the 'old' and 'new' samples, and that differences found cannot only be assigned to changes brought about by selection.
Validity of the findings: Results should be assessed somewhat more critically.
Additional comments: Results are over interpreted and should be evaluated more critically, both in introduction as in discussion. Some comparison with previous evidence on selective footprints in the pig would help the manuscript.

Minor
- Spell out WWI
- Were 'old' samples all from the same farm?
- Van raden proposes several formulae , include formula that specifies actual computations
- Results is somewhat mixed with methods, describe f2,f3 tc family of statistics and interprettaion
- How were significant fst and Flk SNPs defined or justified?
- line 210 FLK does not estimate variability ....
- line 220ff, what is the point of describing hypothetical sweeps in each population? possibly simply sampling, how repeatable are results if say a bootstrap sampling is performed?
- Dscussion: most is overinterpreted, pertinence of lines 300-305 is not clear
- tone down the conclusions


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 ANALYSIS OF GENETIC DIVERSITY AND ARTIFICIAL SELECTION IN LARGE WHITE PIGS IN RUSSIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall, the manuscript is clearly well written and all data are supplied and reported. While most of the tables and figures are of high quality, I am concerned about the legibility of Figure 3. It would be beneficial to export these plots in a higher resolution as the data points blend together and the subtitles are unfortunately not legible. Figure 3D in particular stands out as one that may benefit from being shown on its own, as when it is compressed with 3 other figures it becomes quite difficult to read.
There are a few minor references that need corrections (line 56-59) as well as a placeholder “XX century” (line 70). The reference on line 518 is also incomplete.
Experimental design: Primary research question is well defined, with proper context detailing an interesting knowledge gap. The authors undertook a thorough and impressive approach to evaluate Large White pig genomic data for signatures of selection. Methods are described with enough detail to replicate all analyses.
Validity of the findings: The study I do have minor concern for the lack of a statistical test to determine the rate of false positives. I believe this would strengthen the findings further if included upon revision. Conclusions are concise, compelling, and well supported by the presented data.
Additional comments: With minor revisions, the manuscript will make a valuable contribution.


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: REPRESSION OF ZCT1, ZCT2 AND ZCT3 AFFECTS EXPRESSION OF TERPENOID INDOLE ALKALOID BIOSYNTHETIC AND REGULATORY GENES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comments.
Experimental design: no comments.
Validity of the findings: no comments.
Additional comments: The manuscript reports RNAi-mediated silencing of three zinc-finger regulators, ZCT1, ZCT2 and ZCT3 in Cathranthus hairy roots and its effect on the expression of selected TIA pathway genes encoding enzymes (TDC, STR, CPR, LAMT, T19H, D4H, DAT, 16OMT) and regulators (ORCA2, ORCA3, BIS1, CrBPF, CrMYC1, CrMYC2, CrWRK1, CrWRKY2, GBF1 and GBF2). Over all the manuscript is well-written, experiments are well-designed with appropriate controls, and the results are well described and interpreted. The manuscript provides some interesting information on the regulation of TIA pathway.

I have a few minor comments.

Introduction:
Pl. clarify. CrBPF1 overexpression alters the expression number of TIA pathway genes but not STR in C. roseus hairy roots. Is it correct?

Materials & Methods:
Pl. described surface-sterilization of seeds in few lines.

line 153: seeds were kept in dark for two weeks?

Pl. include a schematic diagram of the RNAi construct in supplement.

Agrobacterium rhizogenes is widely used to generate hairy roots in a wide range of plant species including Catharanthus? Why did the author choose to use A. tumefaciens GV3101 with separate plasmid with rol genes? Was it more efficient (transformation efficiency etc.) than the conventional method? Pl. clarify.

beta-estradiol was added to 28-day-old culture?

Line 223 RNA extraction and qRT-PCR: It should be Reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) (according to MIQE guideline: https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2008.112797).

Results:
It would be nice to include PCR or RT-PCR data (integration/expression of HYG and rolB/C gene) confirming the transgenic status of the hairy roots used in this study in Supplement.

Did the authors measure any metabolites in control and transgenic hairy roots? If yes, pl. include the information in supplement.


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: REPRESSION OF ZCT1, ZCT2 AND ZCT3 AFFECTS EXPRESSION OF TERPENOID INDOLE ALKALOID BIOSYNTHETIC AND REGULATORY GENES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript shows how knocking down of ZCT1/2/3 impact the expression of TIA biosynthetic and regulatory genes. The manuscript was well written and the data were presented clearly. I have a few comments on the manuscript.
1. Line 66: “than” should be changed to “then”
2. Line 120: the authors should explain what is PRX1
Experimental design: The experimental design is good
Validity of the findings: 1. It seems like ZCT1/2/3 have redundant functions. How similar are they? It would be nice if the authors could provide the comparison of the amino acid sequences of ZCT1/2/3.
2. The authors should explain the difference between GBF1 and GBF2. Why do they have opposite expression patterns in the RNAi lines? If they have opposite expression patterns, the claim that ZCT1/2/3 affect the expression of TIA biosynthetic genes via changing GBF1 expression is not very convincing. The authors should give more discussion on this.
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: REPRESSION OF ZCT1, ZCT2 AND ZCT3 AFFECTS EXPRESSION OF TERPENOID INDOLE ALKALOID BIOSYNTHETIC AND REGULATORY GENES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is sometimes difficult to follow. I recommend the authors to further polish the writing.

The figures are also difficult to understand as each chart contains too many data points, a lot of which are overlapping. I recommend the authors to make separate charts for the C, 20, and 38 lines for each gene.
Experimental design: I recommend the authors to clarify the necessity of using an inducible promoter for RNAi and of doing a time course.

I recommend the authors to state how they calculated ∆∆Ct in Material and Methods.
Validity of the findings: There is no explanation why an inducible promoter is used for RNAi. However, the inducible promoter of the RNAi vector is very leaky. Expression of ZCT1-3 genes in line 28 and 32 are already much lower than the control line without induction. I recommend the authors to comment on the possibility that sustained repression of ZCT1-3 has different effects than short term repression.
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: FIRST RECORD OF ENTOMOPATHOGENIC NEMATODES FROM YUCATÁN STATE, MÉXICO AND THEIR INFECTIVITY CAPACITY AGAINST AEDES AEGYPTI
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Reviewer comments:
Interesting manuscript with novel information. Information supplied supported by Figures, Graphs and tables.

Title of manuscript:
‘First record of entomopathogenic nematodes from Yucatán, México and their infective capacity’. I would suggest that authors insert ‘Aedes aegypti’ in title as all work was done on this insect, suggestion to change title to:
‘First record of entomopathogenic nematodes from Yucatán State, Mexico and their infectivity capacity against Aedes aegypti’
Is it Yucatán or Yucatan?  Correct throughout manuscript
References:
I all references in text containing et al., you used et al., as non italic. According to me it should be in italic such as: (Chitra et al., 2017). Please check Journal preferences and correct throughout manuscript
Line 35: Always arrange keywords in alphabetical order – change accordingly
Line 43: Replace ‘plagues’ with ‘pests’
Line 47: Replace ‘cavities’ with ‘openings’
Line 55: Insert ‘on’ before ‘the availability of…..’
Line 60: Change ‘have been also isolated’ to ‘have also been isolated’
Line 73: ‘and evaluated their potential as larvicides of’ change to ‘and evaluate their biocontrol potential against’
Line 81: Replace ‘of plagues’ with ‘of pests’
Line 107: Replace ‘were obtained’ with ‘were collected’
Line 115: Delete ‘their’
Line 118-119: Rewrite as: Four G. mellonella larvae per flask were used and placed at room temperature for 5 days.
Line 185-185: ‘and a control per concentration (each concentration was replicated four
times), with mosquito larvae without nematodes.’ Change to: ‘and a control per concentration (mosquito larvae without nematodes) with each concentration replicated four times’
Line 205: Ae. aegypti should be italic
Line 226: Replace ‘places’ with ‘sites’
Line 241: ‘an unidentified species: Heterorhabditis sp.’ Here as well as in the rest of the manuscript you refer to the new species as Heterorhabditis sp. In Table 1 you refer to it as Heterorhabditis n. sp.
I think that since this is a new unnamed species you should change it throughout the manuscript to Heterorhabditis n. sp. Also change it in Figure 1
Line 260: Delete ‘its sister species’
Line 274: Delete ‘entomopathogenic nematodes’
Line 296: Insert state after Yucatán
Line 301: This is the first formal publication on EPN present in Yucatan soil….change to this is the first record of EPN present in Yucatán soil
I also see that you sometimes refer to Yucatán state and sometimes only to Yucatán and also to Yucatecan. I think you must decide on one and use and correct it throughout the manuscript.
Line 339: Delete ‘of’
Line 381: Delete ‘of’

Figure 1:
Change caption to: Map of Yucatán state showing the sites sampled for entomopathogenic nematodes. Sampling sites marked with red denote absence of EPNs, while sampling sites marked with blue and orange were positive for EPNs.
Table 1:
Insert state after Yucatán in heading
References:
Line 48: Peter & Ehlers, 1994. In references no 1994 only 1997 ??
Line 616: Nelson & Sommers, 1996….in references it is Nelson & Sumner, 1996   ??
Please go through references again and check that all are referred to in manuscript and visa versa


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: FIRST RECORD OF ENTOMOPATHOGENIC NEMATODES FROM YUCATÁN STATE, MÉXICO AND THEIR INFECTIVITY CAPACITY AGAINST AEDES AEGYPTI
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.
Experimental design: Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.
Validity of the findings: All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
Additional comments: General comments
The manuscript entitled: “First record of entomopathogenic nematodes from Yucatán, México and their infective capacity” describes the survey and identification of EPNs isolated from soil sample in Mexico. This is the first report of finding EPN in Yucatan, Mexico. The EPN, H. indica was molecularly identified and were used to infect the larvae of Aedes aegypti. Subsequently, the microbial community in the Ae. aegypti larvae was determined by high-throughput sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene. The techniques used are standard and well-presented and according to me. The manuscript is suitable for publication in the journal with minor revisions. English presented in the manuscript is acceptable with minor corrections.
Specific comments
1.	Consider to change the title as “First record of entomopathogenic nematodes from Yucatán, México and their infective capacity for Aedes aegypti”
2.	Line 76 use “Ae. albopictus” instead of “A. albopictus”.
3.	Line 137 use “gene” instead of “gen”
4.	Line 205 Ae. aegypti should be italic.


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: FIRST RECORD OF ENTOMOPATHOGENIC NEMATODES FROM YUCATÁN STATE, MÉXICO AND THEIR INFECTIVITY CAPACITY AGAINST AEDES AEGYPTI
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: Please add the accession number of EPN that you submitted in NCBI in manuscript.
Line 178 Change Tamura et al. 2013 to Tamura et al., 2013
Line 205 Ae aegypti should be italic letter
Line 230 How many isolates of  H. indica and Heterorhabditis sp. have been identified? Please add isolate number in line 230.
Line 237 Change 1,092 pb to 1,092 bp
Line 251 Change 934 pb to 934 bp
Line 281 should be 16S rRNA not rRNA

Should be rewrite abstract.
 1. Background,  In this study, the entomopathogenic nematodes Heterorhabditis indica and
23 Heterorhabditis sp. are reported for the first time from Yucatan, Mexico.
 This sentence is your result. It is not background.

2. Objective, you purpose that to report EPNs from
1. to report the  entomopathogenic nematodes from Yucatán soils, and
 2) to determine the killing capacity and microbial community present in H. indica against Ae. aegypti mosquito larvae.

3. Methods, should be also write about the method of EPN identification

4. Result, First, sholud be write the result of EPNs species  were isolated and identified. For example, Four isolates of Heterorhabditis were isolated from 144 soil samples.     ...... isolates of  H. indica and ....isolates of Heterorhabditis sp. (n=...) were identified.


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: FIRST RECORD OF ENTOMOPATHOGENIC NEMATODES FROM YUCATÁN STATE, MÉXICO AND THEIR INFECTIVITY CAPACITY AGAINST AEDES AEGYPTI
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript have been improved.
Experimental design: The manuscript have been improved.
Validity of the findings: The manuscript have been improved.
Additional comments: The revised manuscript has been improved in term of scientific logics.


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: FIRST RECORD OF ENTOMOPATHOGENIC NEMATODES FROM YUCATÁN STATE, MÉXICO AND THEIR INFECTIVITY CAPACITY AGAINST AEDES AEGYPTI
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This manuscript is sutible for pubplishing in this journal.


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: CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION OF WEIBULL DISTRIBUTIONS FOR ANALYZING WIND SPEED DISPERSION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: There are numerous spelling and grammar issues that distract the reader. To maximize readership among the international audience, the manuscript should be proofread to fix those issues.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The study presented new confidence intervals for the difference between the coefficients of variations of Weibull distributions using different methods. While generally successful, some modifications are needed.

General comment:
There are numerous spelling and grammar issues that distract the reader. To maximize readership among the international audience, the manuscript should be proofread to fix those issues.

Specific Comments:

1. The first paragraph of the introduction is generally good, but including citations to some stated information would add credibility. For example, in line 30, the authors say that wind energy usage is limited in Thailand; citing a governmental report or another paper would help. Also, a minor comment in this  paragraph in line 26 where the authors say that solar, wind, and hydro would be “developed”: the word  “developed” is not the right word as these sources are already there but need to be efficiently harvested or utilized.  So a more accurate word needs to be used.

2. In the first line of the “Methods” section, specifying that X follows the “2-Parameter Weibull” function is more accurate as this function can have 1 or 3 parameters.

3. In the second paragraph of the Methods section, I assume MLE refers to the maximum likelihood estimation. The abbreviation needs to be clearly defined.

In line 82, the purpose of Algorithm 1, which is used to find k hat and a hat, needs to be properly stated to ensure a smooth flow as the algorithm appears to be disconnected from the previous paragraph.

4. In line 84, how is Z bar computed if S and ku are unknowns? Also what does subscript “u” mean in ku? A clarification is needed

5. In line 96: “Definition 1” gives the impression that a second definition is going to be stated later in the manuscript which is not the case. It should be removed.

6. In line 103, a definition of alpha and the possible range are required.

7. In the line after 109, what does GPQ stand for?

8. Line 138 and 151: The steps are not clearly stated.

9. Line 141 and 154: why are paranthesis used?

10. Line 252 and 277: A citation of the governmental reports would give more credibility to the authors’ results.

11. Figure 4: I assume the x-axis title is iteration?


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: CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION OF WEIBULL DISTRIBUTIONS FOR ANALYZING WIND SPEED DISPERSION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors presented conﬁdence intervals for the difference between the coefﬁcients of variation of Weibull distributions using six different statistical methods. The performance of each method was assessed based on analyzing the coverage probabilities and the expected lengths. Real wind speed data were used as an empirical application for the proposed confidence intervals.

Based on my evaluation, the work was properly presented and the conclusions were clearly stated. The work is appreciable given the fact that Weibull distributions are widely accepted in many research areas and that the coefficient of variation (which is the parameter of interest in this paper) is used for measuring variation in data.
Experimental design: The experimental design is well structured. The statistical algorithms were clearly described for each of the six methods. Some minor changes, additions, modifications, are however needed. These are stated in the Comments for the Author section.
Validity of the findings: In general, the results were properly presented in terms of figures and tables (although some minor changes are needed). Among the different used statistical methods, a clear comparison was made yielding major conclusions.
Additional comments: Note that some lines in the text are not numbered and therefore some of my comments for such ones will refer instead to the closest numbered line or equation.

Literature Review Comments:
1)	Why the earlier work published by the second and the third author, which is related to the confidence intervals for single coefficient of variation of Weibull distribution, is not mentioned in your current literature review?
2)	A brief explanation for why considering the difference in the coefficient of variation over the single coefficient of variation in this work is needed.
3)	You need to emphasize before line 75 that no previous work has considered providing the confidence intervals for the difference in the coefficient of variation of Weibull distribution. This will make the novelty of your work clear to the reader.

Algorithm Comments:
4)	Place a sentence before each algorithm stating the purpose of the algorithm. For example: “The following algorithm is used to compute…”
5)	End all the steps of your algorithms with a period.
6)	Number your steps as 1. 2.  3. … instead of step1, step2, step3, …
7)	Line 141: remove the parenthesis.

Figures and Tables Comments:
8)	Add a row before the CI’s row in Table 1 and name it “Coverage probability (Expected length)”. Then delete the bottom caption of this table.
9)	You might need to try increasing the font size of the x-label, y-label, and legend in figures 1 and 2. They need to be easily readable. The rest of the figures are clear.
10)	The caption of figure 1 should be indeed the one for figure 2 and vice versa.
11)	End all figure captions and table captions with period.
12)	Change “intenration” to “iteration” in the caption of figure 4.

Syntax and Grammar Comments:
13)	Under equation 23: change “it is assume” to “it is assumed”.
14)	Line 29: change “its use reduces” to “it reduces”.
15)	Lines 32-33: change “and the strength of the wind varies throughout the year” to “and wind strength variation throughout the year”.
16)	Line 93: add “was” before “introduced”.
17)	Page 3: remove “respectively” in the following sentence “Similarly, let λY be the coefﬁcient of variation of Y, respectively.”
18)	Line 104: change “be” to “is”.
19)	Line 107: change “be” to “are”.
20)	Line 147: change “be” to “is”.
21)	Line 167: change “form” to “from”.
22)	Line 170: change “be” to “is”.
23)	End the sentences in lines 217, 219, 220, and 221 with a period.
24)	Line 264: change “Figure 3 exhibits” to “Figure 3 shows”.

Other Comments:
25)	Lines 66-67: place all the citations as such: (Vangel, 1996; Tian, 2005; Mahmoud and and Hassani, 2009; Donner and Zou, 2010).
26)	Define “MLEs” as maximum likelihood estimators when you first introduce it in the text in the last line of page 2. Change your sentence accordingly: “The maximum likelihood estimators (MLEs) can be obtained from Cohen (1965)…”.
27)	Similarly define “GPQs” as generalized pivotal quantities after line 109.


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: CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION OF WEIBULL DISTRIBUTIONS FOR ANALYZING WIND SPEED DISPERSION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors have addressed the comments outlined in the first review.


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: CGRP OVEREXPRESSION DOES NOT ALTER DEPRESSION-LIKE BEHAVIOR IN MICE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: the manuscript in general clear and English needs moderate revision (see my general comments attached)
Experimental design: Experiments are well designed and conducted and methods sufficiently described.
There is only one major issue in the results figure 3, some important control groups are missing (see my general comments attached)
Validity of the findings: the findings looks robust and are well discussed based on literature
Additional comments: The authors describe interesting experiments evaluating the effects of the overexpression of CGRP in a mouse model of stress-induced depression.
Althrough in their model the overexpression of CGRP do not change depression like behavior it highlight how CGRP can affects BDNF downstream pathway in the hypocampus. The rational of the project was clearly presented and results are well discussed based on the current literature.

Major comments:

Figure 3 presents the most important results of the paper, however, control groups are missing to really appreciate the effects of CGRP on AKT/mTOR/P70s6K pathway.
The authors should include the AKT, mTOR and P70s6K western blot data and quantification for wt and wt stress groups to know if by itself the overexpression of CGRP affect AKT/mTOR/P70s6K pathway compare to wt, and how stress affects this signaling pathway by comparing wt stress versus tg stress groups.

In a previous paper the authors showed that icv injection of CGRP reduced depression behavior, but do not find the same results with the tg mice.
It would be interesting to discuss the difference between the local effects of CGRP (icv injection) and the systemic effects of CGRP (transgenic mice) on depression.

Other comments
In the abstract the authors say “which indicates that CGRP Tg mice exhibit stress-resistance”; as stress and depression are linked it is awkward to limit stress-resistance to only the increase of BDNF.

The manuscript should be revised for language.
Line 108-109 authors means “we did not treat them with analgesia to not interfere the exposition to stress”
Line 113 the authors mean “hippocampi were collected after deep anesthesia and euthanasia” as it is more ethical to euthanise the mouse before collecting brain tissue.
Line 308 authors mean, “by increasing the neurotrophic factor BDNF”
Line 319-320 the sentence should be rephrased for ore clarity.


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: CGRP OVEREXPRESSION DOES NOT ALTER DEPRESSION-LIKE BEHAVIOR IN MICE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: There are several (minor) language errors throughout the manuscript that must receive attention.  For instance, in line 80: "This Tg mouse expresses high sensitivity of pain [and] low blood pressure...".  Line 108/9: "...we did not treat analgesia them to expose stress."  Line 113: "...were collected at the deep anesthesia."  Line 198: "...was performed when compared four values were analyzed."  These sentences (and others) require improvement.  Further, the use of capital and lower case letters in the figures and text are not constant.  For instance, CGRP (text) vs cgrp (figures).

The introduction section is well written and gives sufficient context for the purpose of the study.  The use and specific characteristics of the animal model used here (i.e. CGRP Tg mouse) can however be briefly elaborated on.  The section concludes with reference to the increased pain sensitivity and hypotension-like characteristics of the model.  A brief description of its CGRP profile would improve the context of the manuscript for the upcoming results and discussion.

The structure of the article is professional with the figures accurately representing the reported data.  All raw data was also shared - thank you.
Experimental design: The research question is relevant to the aims and scope of the journal.

The research question is clearly stated and relevant to the knowledge gap identified in the Introduction section of the manuscript.

The methodology is well described and would enable other groups to replicate the study design.  The authors must however please elaborate on the sucrose preference test's method.  In this regard, the authors earlier state that animals were group housed, yet the data of the sucrose preference test is individual data points, suggesting that the animals were individually housed for the 4 hours of the sucrose preference test?  If this is indeed the case, the authors must please include this in their method section, as single-housing could have a significant effect on behaviour and can then at least be considered by the reader.

Also, were the behavioural tests performed on separate days or as a battery of tests?
Validity of the findings: The major comment for the authors (and editors) to consider is the statistical methods used in the current manuscript.  The authors state that two-way ANOVAs were used as well as "one-way ANOVAs... where appropriate." (lines 199/200).  From the Results section, it appears as though two-way ANOVA results were followed up with a one-way ANOVA - why is this?  The two-way ANOVA results are accurately reported, with both interactions and main effects available.  In instances where only an interaction between stress and strain (CGRP Tg) is significant, the authors can determine inter-group differences with appropriate multicomparison (post-hoc) tests, such as Tukey or Bonferoni.  In other instances where only the main effects were statistically significant, the authors should interpret these results irrespective of the other factor and not re-evaluate the data with a one-way ANOVA.  This is of particular concern, as a one-way ANOVA assumes a single factor to affect the results, which in the case of the manuscript is not the case.  In Figure 2C, the authors report that no significant interaction existed, yet compare the WT (non-stress) and Tg (stress) groups.  This is statistically incorrect and must be reconsidered.

Secondly, although the authors describe the method used to identify and exclude outliers and also report where data points were excluded, statistical tests to identify such data points (e.g. Grubbs tests) can also be considered.

The authors also report a 95% CI in the Results section - what does this indicate?  Is it the CI of the mean difference?  Please calrify.

In the current format, the conclusion made from the results could be inaccurate and must therefore be re-evaluated and considered.
Additional comments: The authors investigated a relevant and interesting research question, with the potential to contribute to our current understanding of depression and possibly identify novel treatment targets.  However, to improve the drawn conclusions and potential impact, the authors must please reconsider their statistical analysis methods.


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: CGRP OVEREXPRESSION DOES NOT ALTER DEPRESSION-LIKE BEHAVIOR IN MICE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: na
Experimental design: na
Validity of the findings: na
Additional comments: All my comments have adequately been addressed.
However, I have an additional minor comment to make before the manuscript is suitable for publication.

In the discussion line 304, “Thus, increases in neurotrophic factors in response to systemic and acute increases in CGRP may differ”, do the Authors mean “local” rather than “acute”?


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: CGRP OVEREXPRESSION DOES NOT ALTER DEPRESSION-LIKE BEHAVIOR IN MICE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have addressed the concerns raised in the previous review.  Thank you for improving the language of the manuscript.
Experimental design: All concerns have been addressed by the authors, improving the manuscript and clarifying where needed.
Validity of the findings: I remain concerned with the statistical methods used. Although improvements have been made (thank you), the use of a one-way ANOVA as follow-up test for two-way ANOVAs is concerning.  For instance, the results of Fig 2B (line 255) state: "...two-way ANOVA showed statistical differences in stress and CGRP Tg interaction (F(1,33) = 5.890, p = 0.0209) but not for [main effects].  One-way ANOVA (F(3,33) = 4.662, p = 0.008) detected significant differences..."  Why was the two-way ANOVA followed up by this test, specifically in the presence of a significant interaction?  An appropriate Tukey (or other) post-hoc test performed here, would be able to identify group differences.  Further, because of there being two influential factors (i.e stress and Tg), a one-way ANOVA cannot be performed as this test assumes only one influential factor.  Although it may be that the reported results may be unchanged following other analyses, the repeatability of this data set as a whole would still be greatly improved.  I therefore suggest the authors to consult statistical services for confirmation.
Additional comments: Thank you for providing an improved version of the manuscript.  Because of the concern regarding the statistical analyses, I suggest consulting a bio-statistician / statistical services for confirmation, to validate the discussion and overall conclusion.


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: CYTOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF TRACHEAL WASH AND BRONCHOALVEOLAR LAVAGE FLUID IN HEALTH AND RESPIRATORY DISEASE IN DROMEDARY CAMELS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The literature sorucesd can be reduced substantially without loss  of support. As well, removal of some papewrs not peer reviewed work and some that are inappropriate refences is needed. See comments to author
Experimental design: The research question is important and of interest.  Additional details are required  within the material  and methods (see comments to the authors) are needed. As well, the authors need to  provide more specific disease/ diagnosis aspects of the nonhealthy cohort, this group as currently presented is inclear as to how to relate  to  diffierent defined diangoses (ie, some viral infections? And aspiration phemonia??  would differ greatly.
Statistics, suggest a post hoc adjustment of p values, and providendata with  confidence intervals
Validity of the findings: The   the cofindings appear valid, with the caveat that the interpretation of changes in proportion of cell type need to include consideration of codependance of each cell type with others.
Additional comments: This work of describing BAL and TW cytology in normal and diseased camels is of great interest to the veterinary community, in adding to the range of species these two diagnostic tests are used for study of respiratory disease.
The paper is generally well written and aims are clear. The figures and tables included are relevant, and the supplementary information (excel files) important for transparency of the overall work. The title may be suited to slight modification, to state that this work was performed in healthy AND diseased camels. Ie:
Cytological analysis of tracheal wash and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in health and respiratory disease in dromedary camels

There are however some aspects of the material and methods that could benefit from additional details (see comments below).
As well, with use of references the number could be reduced considerably (likely fewer than half the number would suffice, and references non-peer reviewed works (Vet Clin North America, Congress proceedings, and non-searchable papers (ie “ Shawaf t. 2011. Evaluation of Equine Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid (BALF) and Tracheal Aspirate Sample (TAs) in Normal and Recurrent Airway Obstruction (RAO) Horses. Berlin: mensch und buch verlag” does not come up on pubmed or google) should be removed.

Specific comments: Material and Methods.
My first question is the inclusion of ”diseased “ cohort. While the supplementary information provides details of clinical score this group is in all likelihood very heterogeneous. The paper would benefit and be of great interest to the reader by inclusion include a form of clinical diagnosis for the diseased. This would allow subclassification.  For example, were some animals affected by bacterial pneumonia? On the other hand, were there issues of environmental problems – noninfectious airway inflammation such as occurs in asthma in horses? It appears that the clinical scores varied widely within the diseased group. Thus, it would be helpful to both provide clinical diagnoses, and conduct a subclassification of this larger cohort (ie, those with clinical scores 3-5, those 5 or greater? Those with and without fever, which is most simple and defendable to subgroup.) Once the diseased cohort has this subclassification, re-analyses of the TW and BAL results may provide additional highly relevant diagnostic information to the reader.
Regarding the procedure of conducting cytology, the authors should state who (one person, several different persons? trained clinical pathologist?) performed the cell differentials. As well, were those conducting cytology blinded to the health status of the camel?
Moreover, in use simply of Diffquick staining the authors should provide rational, if this has any possible weaknesses in how one would interpret the results; cell distribution? Were there alternative methods that could have been used? For example, classification of cells, in particular mast cells, other stains can be of an advantage in identifying cells that would be missed with Diffquick. As well, differentiation of macrophages from lymphocytes (large granular lymphocytes versus smaller poorly vacuolated alveolar macrophages) gains from selective cells staining or immunologic tagging (ie, see the reference Osbaldiston and Sullivan Cytochemical demonstration of esterases in peripheral blood leukocytes. Am J Vet Res 1978… the method which was used for classification in calf BAL- Pringle …. Valli . Can J Vet Res 1988)- undoubtedly cell identification methods have improved even more in the past several decades. Please provide comment, either in material and methods or, perhaps more fitting, in discussion, of the influence your choice of the specific methodology might have influenced your overall results (and conclusions).
Regarding BAL, in my own experience (horses), some individuals with severe asthma will have a very low volume of fluid recovered on the BAL procedure. While the authors provide total cell counts (per volume) do they have data on volume recovered? And if so, it would held the evidence base of the work to provide the information; if the volumes between healthy and disease did not differ the results presented would not be markedly altered, whereas significantly different volume recovered on BAL should be included in the analyses alongside the total cell numbers per volume. As well, the descriptive statistics of results of cytology differentials and counts will suffice with one decimal point in reporting
Regarding statistics, as very many comparisons were being made with the ANOVA, please consider applying a post hoc adjustment/correction  of P values; Bonferroni or the like, as just by chance with the multiple comparisons some with be found to P< 0.05. It would also be suitable to provide the 95% confidence intervals in your datasets.
The remainder of my comments are as follows and from the order of appearance within the manuscript.
Line 47… probably around 30 million heads (Faye 2015)

Line 62-63 “The selection of the sampling method depends on disease progression (Rossi et al. 2018).”
 I suggest rewording here. “Progression” implies the same disease over time.  Whereas TW is more suited to infectious that samples assembled cells that are swept up from the lower airways, BAL is for diseases within the respiratory tract beyond the carina, and presumably generalized (asthma, environmental insult..)

Line 68-70 “BAL and TW samples are also useful in giving an insight on the severity and stage of inflammatory reactions in the lung and also in the detection of subclinical pulmonary diseases (Beech 1975; Caldow 2001).
Beech, 1975, did not describe BAL- it was not even commonly used in veterinary medicine until after the 1980’s. Please use an alternate reference and remove Beech.

80: Animals and experimental design
Please include the weights (if recorded) and sex distribution of your healthy and diseased cohorts: this will aid in the reader seeing how the groups compared phenotypically and by signalement.

Line 91 suggest changing this wording “ including clinical signs (like such as dyspnea…
Lines 92-94 Clinical scoring. Please describe who did the clinical scoring (one or several of the authors?) and whether the scoring was blinded (based on the material and methods this does not appear to be likely). As well, for a scoring scheme please provide a reference to peer reviewed work, and explain what the “modifications” to the scoring system were
Section : Bronchoscopy and collection of TW and BAL samples
This is a long section and can benefit by revising with reduction of the repetition of a number of sentences, as well as a number of language issues. The route for xylazine should be included (IV?). As well, when the TW was performed is appears as written to be bronchial (line 109-110). Was this the case? I found this part confusing, - how has the TW been performed to sample from mid cervical trachea, when the statement earlier indicates that the endoscope tip had passed the carina and this in the bronchial region. As written here- if fluid was indeed flushed into the bronchi, the authors will need to describe what parts of the respiratory tract epithelial lining was sampled, and whether this first procedure may have had an influence on the subsequent BAL cytology.
This should be clarified, as samples from beyond the carina can differ from cervical tracheal (more likely upper airway cells can blend into cervical tracheal mucous. This is also vital to clarify for others who would be repeating your work.

Line 150 “The observation of tracheal wall congestion” are the authors suggesting "hyperemia"?
I do not believe congestion can be determined on visual inspection- others (Koch et al. Endoscopic scoring of the tracheal septum in horses and its clinical relevance for) the evaluation of lower airway health in horses. Eq Vet J 2007) have attempted to identify this and no found relationship (it is subjective and subject to inter reader variation). I suggest removing this qualifier and place focus on the mucous scoring.

Line 169 … food material (singular)
Line 171 “contained significantly more cells (824 ± 401.1cel/μl) than”… should be cells/μl and throughout the rest of the manuscript and tables
Line 180-  “epithelia cells (and elsewhere, should be “epithelial cells”, as is written on line 188.
Discussion
Lines 190-193- This portion is largely a repetition of your aims. It would be of greater interest to the reader for this to begin with your highlights of your key findings, ie, what were the most important findings from your work?

Lines 193-193 According to the methodology applied in this work this is not surprising. For TW to be used for culture, the optimal method is by transtracheal aspiration; insertion of a sterile flushing tube through a tracheal canula between tracheal rings below the larynx. Alternatively in the horse, a guarded sterile silastic tube within and outer plastic sleeve (Darien et al. A tracheoscopic technique for obtaining uncontaminated lower airway secretions for bacterial culture in the horse. Eq Vet J 1990)  is now in common clinical use. I suggest the authors expand on this part as to alternatives to be considered for the camel if bacteriologic samples are to be collected.

Lines 196-197 “As there were no complications during the follow-up
examination of studied animals, we can confirm that BAL procedure is considered safe in camels”.

This statement of “no complications” lacks data on how the animals were monitored and followed up. In the horse it is not unusual to have transient fever one or 2 days following a BAL. Thus Thus in material and methods there needs to include additional information on how animals were monitored during and in particular after the sampling. To make this statement of “no complications” the reader should be informed as to what basis you can make this conclusion.

Lines 209-212
As noted above, the proportion (% of differentials) has a very closely associated codependent factor of other cell fluxes, particularly given that the cell numbers per set volume increased in the diseased cohort. Thus, it is important to include volume of fluid recovered in your material and methods, and results. Thereby in your discussion you can provide more robust comment which may reveal whether selected cell types (ie macrophages) actually decreased in total number, or simply this appeared to be due to an overall increase in neutrophils. As well, within the discussion it would be of great interest to the reader to have an expansion of the interpretation of the results, not solely “findings are consistent (or at odds) with others”. Such comment are observations, which would benefit from then follow with a discussion of potential interpretation/ significance of your findings. Where at odds, are there reasons for differing findings, are there weaknesses in the current study the authors need clarify? Thus a suggestion of decrease in macrophage proportion (BAL) or lymphocyte proportion (TW) - (lines 35-40 introduction) needs to be put into context: were these findings immunologically relevant decrease in these cell types, or simply a bystander effect of influx of neutrophils?
Line 238. Reference Riihimaki et al 2008, they performed endobronchial biopsy with cell immunohistochemical staining, and not tracheal wash sampling. Please remove this reference.


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: CYTOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF TRACHEAL WASH AND BRONCHOALVEOLAR LAVAGE FLUID IN HEALTH AND RESPIRATORY DISEASE IN DROMEDARY CAMELS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Be consistent with spellings, e.g. epithelial cells (line 177 and others)