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: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE DEGREE OF FIBROSIS IN FIBROTIC FOCUS AND THE UNFAVORABLE CLINICOPATHOLOGICAL PROGNOSTIC FEATURES OF BREAST CANCER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
There is some information missing in the raw data, which is not of importance for the final results (family tumor histories, drinking and smoking history).
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: The impact and novelty of this manuscript cannot be assessed. However, this research has a very interesting theme that is very scarce in modern literature. The researched connection between clinico-pathological prognostic features in breast cancer is presented  systematically in a very interesting way.The acquired results are potentially of great interest.
Additional comments: 1. The authors state in the manuscript (line 82-84): “Therefore, a retrospective study was conducted to explore the association between the degree of fibrosis in FF and the prognosis of breast cancer.” The follow up patients was too short to speak about breast cancer prognosis. Maybe it would be more adequate to speak about the connection between the FF and unfavorable clinicоpathological prognostic features.
2.The authors cite a very interesting statement in their manuscript (line 146-147): “In addition, the densities of micro-vessels and micro-lymphatic vessels in FF were significantly higher than those in normal tissue.” Could the research also include the analysis of microvascular density in FF and peritumor tissue? If so, what are the reasons for not including this characteristic in the research?
3. I ask the authors to explain why the FF size was not measured in the research? Hypothetically, the correlation between the degree of fibrosis in FF and the size of FF could maybe give an answer to the crucial question wich of these two parameters has a higher significance.
4.In the raw data 38 BC with equivocal HER-2 status exist.Please explain. Why was the HER-2 status in these patients remained equivocal(2+)? Would the final defining of HER-2 status in these BC change the statistic results ad connection between the fibrosis in FF and HER-2 positivity in BC?
5. In the raw data, in sections P and Q exist 9 BC who have ER-PR+ status. They are mainly classified in the Luminal B breast cancer group. Was 20% of positive tumor cells a limit for PR positivity in the both Luminal BC groups (Luminal A and Luminal B)?


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: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE DEGREE OF FIBROSIS IN FIBROTIC FOCUS AND THE UNFAVORABLE CLINICOPATHOLOGICAL PROGNOSTIC FEATURES OF BREAST CANCER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This was a generally well conducted study implicating close association between high fibrosis in fibrotic focus in breast invasive ductal carcinoma and invasiveness and the high malignancy of breast.
Manuscript is clearly written, the aim of the research clearly emerges from the background section. The references are relevant and well stated.
Experimental design: This is original research within aims and scope of the journal. Research question is well defined, investigation is well performed, methods are described with enough details. There is no data about degree of fibrosis in fibrotic focus and prognosis of breast cancer.
Validity of the findings: Research question is well defined, investigation is well performed, methods are described with enough details. Conclusion fits the obtained data.
Additional comments: Minor points:
Arrows that indicate main findings listed in figure legend should be inserted in Figure 1.
There are missing or extra spaces in lines 66, 71, 72, 148, 247, 248, 272.
It is stated that fibroblastic proliferation can be seen in Fig 1C (stated in figure legend), I suggest high number of fibroblasts instead fibroblastic proliferation, since proliferation of cells can not be detected by H&E staining.


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: UP-REGULATION OF CRYPTOCHROME 1 GENE EXPRESSION IN COTTON BOLLWORM (HELICOVERPA ARMIGERA) DURING MIGRATION OVER THE BOHAI SEA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The English is clear, Introducion to show context and Literature well referenced and relevant. Structure conforms to PeerJ standards. Figures are relevant, high quality, well labelled and described.
Experimental design: Methods described with sufficient detail and information to replicate.
Validity of the findings: Conclusions is ok.
Additional comments: The research paper entitled, “Up-regulation of cryptochrome 1 gene expression in cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera)
during migrating over the Bohai Sea” is every helpful to design the migrating behavior in H. armigera. The objectives are nicely framed with defined goal.


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: UP-REGULATION OF CRYPTOCHROME 1 GENE EXPRESSION IN COTTON BOLLWORM (HELICOVERPA ARMIGERA) DURING MIGRATION OVER THE BOHAI SEA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Yang et al. reported the finding of multiple isoforms of cry1 and cry2 in H. armigera. Both genes are more expressed in wild migratory populations than those maintained in lab. cry2 is in general less constrained and less expressed than cry1.

There are a few major problems with figure 3 and 4. The numbering is flipped, and some subfigures are not covered in the main text. More details should be provided either in caption or in the methods part. Besides, high-resolution figures are preferred. Font and size of the labels should be adjusted to the same format among panels. Grammar errors in the captions should be corrected before acceptance.
Experimental design: More details of the samples should be added (see General comments for the author).
Validity of the findings: The findings are clear, however, certain implications are not well supported. Authors should either provide more evidence to support those conclusions or cut/ move them to discussion.
Additional comments: Major changes:

1. In general, the authors should be more conservative on drawing conclusions.
a. More evidence is needed to support that "relaxation on nonsynonymous constraint suggested a possibility that the cry2 might have lost some function in H. armigera" (Line 188, Line 235). The authors could either point out nonsense mutations on cry2 or drop this statement.
Moreover, this loss-of-function statement contradicts with the discussion that HaCRY2s may function the same as other HaCRYs (Line 223-224).
b. It's unconvincing that cry2 has undergone a neutral selection given the small omega. It shows less strong purification selection than cry1, but not to the degree to be considered as neutral.
c. There are a number of factors other than migration that could potentially down regulated cry1 and cry2 during the domestication in lab, e.g. the luminosity and frequency of the light that was used, the stableness of the light cycle, the temperature and humidity, etc. There is not enough evidence supporting that cry1 plays an important role in migration given that migration is not the only difference between the wild and lab populations. This part is suggested to be moved to discussion from results.

2. Questions concerning the phylogenetic analysis:
a. What will happen if the authors include all transcripts in the phylogenetic analyses? This could potentially help resolve the inconsistence of dn/ds between the analyses with and without all isoforms. At least the authors should provide more details like what other outgrip species are included in the analysis with all transcripts.
b. The author mentioned separation the nucleotide sequences to three partitions, but could the author clarify which partition (1st/ 2nd/ 3rd codon) are the phylogenetic results based on?
c. Is it possible to use at least one common outgroup species for both cry1 and cry2? (e.g. mosquitos, butterflies, or moths)

3. When the authors refer to Figure 3a they might mean Figure 4. The numbering needs to be corrected.

4. There are a few major problems concerning figure 3. It's strongly suggested that the authors double check the figures to clearly convey the right information.
a. Figure 3b and 3d are not mentioned in the main text.
b. Assuming the y axis represents the relative expression of cry1/2 to beta actin, Figure 3a doesn't show the expression difference between CD and LF. If the y axis represents the relative expression of cry1/2 of LF and CD, it should be noted in both the axis label, figure caption, and main text. If the authors actually mean Figure 4, what should be the correct text for figure 3a?
c. Figure 3b shows difference between males and females. Could the author possibly explain the huge difference?
d. Among the four panels, the expression of cry1 is sort of stable < 0.2, but the relative levels of cry2 varies too much, from 0.0001 to 0.8. Could the author explain the difference?
e. Given that the expression of cry1 and cry2 varies a lot in different sexes (3b), times of the day (3a) and year (3d), days of development (3b), tissues (3a), the authors should provide more details about controlling of the variables, for example, which sex and tissue were used for figure 3a and 3c, etc.? This question also applies to Figure 4.

Minor changes:
1. Line 15, Line 31, It's not necessary to mention flavoprotein here since it's not relevant to the main findings of this study.
2. Line 19, please first define the abbreviation Hacry before using it.
3. Line 38-40, This piece of information is not closely relevant and should either be modified or removed.
4. Line 41-46, could the authors further explain if there is any difference in the regulation of circadian rhythm among the three categories?
5. Line 54, remove "within China".
6. Line 58, overwinter is one word.
7. Line 97, "Plasmids of Hacry positive clones" --> "positive clones of plasmids of Hacry".
8. Line 116, adapt to.
9. Line 257, "... H. armigera occurred alternative splicing generated six and seven transcripts respectively." --> "occurred alternative splicing which generated six and seven transcripts, respectively."
10. Line 259, constraint --> constrained
11. Line 306, Red shown the PHP region --> region shaded in red correspond to the PHP region
12. Line 307, "--/./- stand for ..." --> "--/./- stands for ..."
13. Line 308, I don't see == in the figure?
14. Line 390, larvae should not be italicized.
15. The axes labels of 4b Cry1 CD are smaller than the rest.
16. Could the authors provide a high-resolution Figure S1?
17. Is there a better way to annotate MTHF and FAD region? The current underscores is hard to tell.
18. In a few figures, panel table (A)(B) have different fonts and sizes from the figure. It's recommended to adopt one format.


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: UP-REGULATION OF CRYPTOCHROME 1 GENE EXPRESSION IN COTTON BOLLWORM (HELICOVERPA ARMIGERA) DURING MIGRATION OVER THE BOHAI SEA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The overall writing really needs a little improvement. It would be hard for people whose native language is not English. At least information should be delivered accurately to readers. Please spend time to polish it on your grammar and sentence structure.

Technical concerns:
1.	Page 1 line 17, “identify” should be “identified”, and there are some similar mistakes throughout the rest of this article, please correct them.
2.	Page 2 line 23, “than in laboratory maintained populations”, “that” should be inserted followed by “than”, and there are some similar mistakes throughout the rest of this article, please correct them.
3.	Page 3 line 31, I think there is something wrong with the first sentence.
4.	Page 3 line 39-40, there is something wrong with the sentence, please express it correctly and clearly.
5.	Page 3 line 43-45, there is something wrong with the sentence, please express it correctly and clearly.
6.	Page 4 line 57, “over wintering” should be “overwintering”, it would be better to keep consistent with preceding part of the manuscript.
7.	Page 4 line 64, there is something wrong with the sentence, please express it correctly and clearly.
8.	Page 5 line 72, there is something wrong with the sentence, please express it correctly and clearly.
9.	Page 5 line 76, please change “25℃” to “25 ℃”. And there are some similar mistakes throughout the rest of this article, please correct them.
10.	Page 5 line 82, please change “Hacry” to “Hacry”.
11.	Page 6 line 111-112, there is something wrong with the sentence, please express it correctly and clearly. And there are some similar mistakes throughout the rest of this article, please correct them.
12.	Page 7 line 132, I think that “by us” is redundant.
13.	Page 8 line 148, I think that “by us” is redundant. there is something wrong with the sentence, please express it correctly and clearly.
14.	Page 9 line 167, “Phologenetic” should be “Phylogenetic”. Please find similar mistakes and correct them.
15.	Page 11 line 199-200, It is confusing. Please describe it correctly and clearly.
16.	Page 11 line 213-214, there is something wrong with the sentence, please express it correctly and clearly.
17.	Page 12 line 230, there is something wrong with the sentence, please express it correctly and clearly.
18.	Page 12 line 235, there is something wrong with the sentence structure. please express it correctly and clearly.
19.	Page 13 line 244-245, please correct their tenses. Please find similar mistakes and correct them.
20.	Letter case in figures and figure legends should be same. Statistical analysis should be consistent and conform to standards. And “p” should be lower case and Italic.
21.	Page 14 line 279, gene name should be Italics, please correct them and the others of this article.
22.	In some figures, it is better to add title in vertical axis and in each of bar graph.
Experimental design: My major concern with this paper is that the title is “migrating over Bohai sea”, but the readers would not find Bohai sea throughout the manuscript. International readers will be hard to understand the sampling regions and their association with migrating. And this should be put into the introduction, methods, results, and discussion.
Validity of the findings: Cryptochromes are flavoproteins and play a pivotal role in circadian clocks which mediate behavior of organisms such as feeding, mating, and migrating navigation. In this manuscript, the authors identified novel transcripts in H. armigera by sequencing, six isoforms of cry1 and seven isoforms of cry2. Phylogenetic analysis showed that the transcripts of cry1 and cry2 align closely with other insect homologs, indicating within-species divergence of Hacry. A dn/ds analysis revealed that the encoding sequence of the cry1 was under purifying selection by a strong negative selection pressure whereas the cry2 was less constraint and underwent a nearly neutral evolution. Hacrys were more abundantly transcribed in wild migrating populations than that in laboratory maintained populations, and expression of the cry2 was lower than cry1. Moreover, when compared with the migrating parental population, offspring reared in laboratory conditions showed a significant reduction on transcription of the cry1 but not cry2. Taken together, they concluded that cry1 plays a more important role than cry2 during the migration behavior of H. armigera, which may have important implication for understanding migratory behavior of key crop pest species.
Additional comments: This manuscipt needs revision before acceptance.


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: UP-REGULATION OF CRYPTOCHROME 1 GENE EXPRESSION IN COTTON BOLLWORM (HELICOVERPA ARMIGERA) DURING MIGRATION OVER THE BOHAI SEA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have properly responded to my comments and nicely corrected grammatical errors. I don't have other concerns at the moments.
Experimental design: As above.
Validity of the findings: As above.
Additional comments: As 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: UP-REGULATION OF CRYPTOCHROME 1 GENE EXPRESSION IN COTTON BOLLWORM (HELICOVERPA ARMIGERA) DURING MIGRATION OVER THE BOHAI SEA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have answered all concerns raised in the last review.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors have answered all concerns, and I suppor the publication of this manuscript.


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

Input:
Title: LAND USE IS THE MAIN DRIVER OF SOIL ORGANIC CARBON SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION IN A HIGH MOUNTAIN ECOSYSTEM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Generally, I can understand the entire content of the manuscript, but I think that the paper needs to go through English editing and proofreading by a native speaker.

The general field background is provided but could be improved. Notably, because there were many previous studies on mapping/modeling soil organic carbon (SOC) or the relationship of land use change and SOC dynamics, their methods and findings should be summarized in the instruction.

All the figures could be improved. Please see the specific comments.
Experimental design: This research is within the aims and scope of the journal, and the technique flow applied in this research is reasonable. The results are somehow valuable and the methodological approach will be of interest to some readers. However, I must be honest that this research is as a case study and its originality was not clear.

The description of methods should be more adequate. For example, the following points should be clarified.
- Why were 6 interpolation methods selected?
- Only two interpolation methods were described in the supplementary.
- Was NDVI data the mean value calculated from 12 image scene? Was NDVI calculated from DN or radiance or reflectance data? Which were methods used for correcting OLI images? Image preprocessing should be described.
- Why was only A horizon SOC (not SOC stock) interpolated for the spatial variability?
Validity of the findings: The number of soil sampling sites were numerous. However, the authors should clarify the novelty of this study and what the difference varies from the related research. It is important to show parameters and figures of variograms of geostatistics methods. Although interpolation was the main method, its results were mostly not analyzed and discussed or linked to other results.

Another concern is that land use was classified very simply into three types (forest, grassland, and agriculture), therefore, the usefulness of results was limited. If SOC was linked to more types of forestland, such as pine and mixed forest, and croplands, the findings would be much more attractive.

The NDVI data should be compared with all vegetation types not only forest in the park.
Additional comments: More specific comments:
Fig. 1. The left bottom figure seemed a hillshade, not an elevation data. The design should be more professional such as using the same font size of legend and grid and scale bar labels, shorten scale bar, add more grid labels, etc. The accurate boundary of the park should be used.

Fig. 2. A) Correlation coefficients and lines should be added. B) Better to use boxplots.

Fig. 3. A) Colors of NDVI and sampling points should be different; B) Correlation coefficients and lines should be added.

Figs. 4-6 should be organized into 2 figures, one for three deterministic methods and one for three geostatistics methods. The boundaries of land use categories should be overlaid on top of interpolation results.


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: LAND USE IS THE MAIN DRIVER OF SOIL ORGANIC CARBON SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION IN A HIGH MOUNTAIN ECOSYSTEM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. Overall, the manuscript is publishable, but, needs a critical revision first. For example:
Line 22: in the soil;
Line 26: the soil was……;
Line 36: consider writing in the active voice;
Line 39: “a change” or “the change”;
Line 90: the country;
Line 93-94: this research aimed to……;
Line 95: the soil;
Line 123: ArcGIS
Line 124: the area evenly;
Line 126: The soil samples was collected from……;
Line 137: according to;
Line 158: highly depended on……;
Line 259: The SOC in the A horizon was highly variable......;
Line 292: a higher SOC stock;
Line 357: The type and density of vegetation are......;
Line 414: This facilitated access to......;
Line 431:  and protected areas.
2.Line 20-22: “Human activities, mostly the conversion of forests to pastures and agricultural land, reduce the C stored in soil. ” This sentence is not accurate, and the conversion of human activities in LU/LC is not limited to this. When used as a background, a qualifier or a broader description should be added.
3.Line 26-line 29: There are many methods for geostatistical interpolation techniques, and specific methods used should are described in the abstract.
4.I suggest that use one or two sentences to clarify the significance and purpose in the abstract.
5.In general, the last paragraph of the introduction should clearly state the purpose of the study, such as “aim to……”.
Experimental design: 1) Within aims and scope of the PeerJ journal.
2) Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how the research fills an identified knowledge gap.
3) Structure conforms to technical & ethical standard.
4) Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
However, this paper needs some places to the explanation.
1.How does cross-validation divide two data sets?
2.The sampling point does not seem to  be evenly divided 440 100-ha square grids.Uneven distribution of sampling points may result in poor interpolation.
Validity of the findings: 1) Data is robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
2) Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
3) Speculation is welcome.
Additional comments: 1.The correlation of Figure 2 and 3 needs to indicate the correlation coefficient and passed the significance test at the 0.01 level?
2.How is the contribution mentioned in SOC stocks variability and total SOC stock determined?
3.What is the value of the snow line in the area? Part of the coniferous forest grows above the snow line. How is the SOC distribution in this case?
4.SOC is often affected by vertical zonality, and some of the content is appropriately added during the discussion.
5.Add a part of the shortcomings and prospects.


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: LAND USE IS THE MAIN DRIVER OF SOIL ORGANIC CARBON SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION IN A HIGH MOUNTAIN ECOSYSTEM
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript has been greatly improved. There are small font sizes for numbers in the Figs. 1 and 3, which can be challenging to read, so please consider using a bigger font size.
Experimental design: This research is within the aims and scope of the journal, and the technique flow applied in this research is reasonable. The methodology will be of interest to some readers. Although this research is as a case study, it can bring a better understanding of the organic C sequestered in a specific ecosystem in Mexico.
Validity of the findings: It would be great if the authors added variogram charts of geostatistical analysis into the manuscript or the supplementary. The best interpolation method for SOC mapping was not confirmed in the conclusion section.
Additional comments: L119: extrapolation -> interpolation


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: LAND USE IS THE MAIN DRIVER OF SOIL ORGANIC CARBON SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION IN A HIGH MOUNTAIN ECOSYSTEM
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: Manuscript has been improved.
Additional comments: I believe that the authors have made a number of revisions to the manuscript to improve the data presented and that this manuscript is now suitable for publication.


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: PILATES VERSUS RESISTANCE TRAINING ON TRUNK STRENGTH AND BALANCE ADAPTATIONS IN OLDER WOMEN: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Spelling and grammatical errors throughout manuscript- suggest re-read of manuscript from someone external to the research team. For example in the abstract, starting a sentence with PG is not recommended.
Inconsistency of word "program" and "programmes" and "elderly" and "older" women

Line 46, 98, 100,: reword sentence
Line 51: New sentence "Thus..."
Line 53; unsure what the .. are for?
Line 54, 259, 312, 326: insert reference
Line 60; provide more than the one reference you have as you included "studies"

Line 89: provide ethics number
Line 107: include the number of sessions with %

Throughout the manuscript, you need to be consistent on what one of the groups is, muscular group or traditional resistance training? very confusing?

Line 234: included results to strengthen your statement in the discussion

Line 257; two or three? you include three studies after this sentence, recheck? You should also include more detail about these studies age bracket and whether this related to females or both genders included int he results for the comparison of the results you have for this manuscript.

Inconsistency of referencing formatting

Figure 1: consistency of either 'intervention" or "group" for the manuscript.
Include what ITT stands for
Curious as to why participants discontinued intervention for Pilates and muscular intervention
All tables: rephrase titles as they should stand without the manuscript.
Table 1: include weeks 1-2 in table
Table 2-7: include key legend of words missing eg. SD missing what * for p-values represent
Table 4 -5: what does * mean?
Experimental design: I think you need to provide more detail and make the link very clear with your research topic as to why isometric and isokinetic strength is important to measure (in particular in the introduction section).You also need to include something about TUG in the introduction as you don't mention this in the introduction but talk about it in the results and discussion section. Suggest changing the title as well as it doesn't link to the manuscript.

Lines 91-92: include ethics number

Line 100: what did the medical evaluation entail to rule out physical and mental restrictions that were included in your exclusion criteria

In regards to inclusion criteria, why do you restrict women above 81 years of age? and why do you restrict women who had cognitive impairment?

Outcomes section needs to be separated as you also include protocol information in here and this doesn't really fit under the heading. You will also need to include references for your measurement protocols to justify why you selected those measurements and validation for the population you have researched. You will also need to include more detail on the acronyms provided in this section eg.line 155 /sg???

May you please provide clarification on lines 203-204 as you had the recruitment until December but previously stated that your study was restructured, just a bit confusing to read.
Line 206: was this percentage weekly? total? provide detail.
Line 210: include P-values

Include more detail on the study limitations.

I believe there are too many tables for this manuscript - 7 tables are just too much.
Validity of the findings: Line 206: why were registered adverse events only in CG and not in the two groups that were of particular focus for the research topic?
Line 229: what was defined as adverse events?
Additional comments: I suggest making the changes recommended to strengthen the manuscript.


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

Input:
Title: PILATES VERSUS RESISTANCE TRAINING ON TRUNK STRENGTH AND BALANCE ADAPTATIONS IN OLDER WOMEN: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript was designed to determine whether Pilates or resistance training is better at improving muscular strength (trunk and lower limb) and balance (static and dynamic). Although being used since the beginning of the last century, the benefits of Pilate’s method are still under investigation. So, RCTs are very welcome and necessary to establish its real benefits, mainly for older adults. As I'm not an English speaker, I'm not considered myself able to raise criticisms about the English style. Besides the relevance of the study, there are some points that must be reviewed by the authors.

Introduction
1) There are some misconceptions that need to be rewritten. First of all, I challenge authors to sustain the definition of health (absence of disease and a good physical condition) stated in the manuscript, mainly for older adults. Recently, WHO published a report in that the definition of health aging goes in a different way.

2) The authors must be aware of generalization. In the gerontology field, the optimal achievement of activities of daily living is dependent on physical, mental and environmental factors. So, I suggest that the author rephrase the relationship among core/trunk muscles, balance and activities of daily living (please, exemplified using relevant data/paper published).

3) As the own name says, multicomponent training or multimodal training is considered when two or more of the following components are involved in the physical exercise program: muscular resistance, endurance/walking, balance or flexibility. A training program that only involves muscular resistance/strength exercise, either in machines or elastic bands, cannot be called as multicomponent training.

4) The rationale for support the hypothesis must be improved. It is not clear the differences between the proposed exercises in improving muscular strength and balance. In addition, there is evidence that Pilates improves dynamic balance, but not the static balance. Please, give a scientific basement to support the study’s hypothesis.
Experimental design: The aims and scope are original and relevant. However, the research question must be well defined, as mentioned above. My comments about the material, methods, and experimental design are pointed below.

1)	The authors assume that participants are physically and mentally able to participate in the exercise programs, which are attested by a GP. Are the volunteers submitted to tests to confirm these?

2)	In addition, there are some inclusion criteria that need more details. Which test and/or scales were used to evaluate activities of daily living (KATZ? LAWTON?), cognitive function (MMSE?) and chronic diseases (self-report?).

3) Please, provide the number of Ethics Board committee approval.

4) Please, make clear in the text if the Pilates exercises were performed on the mat and/or on the apparatus. In addition, provide an illustrated (photo) of each Pilates and resistance training exercise presented in Table 1 (can be included as supplementary data, as well). The breathing pattern described in Table 1 is not clear. There are many Pilates schools in the world, justifying the importance of make the protocol as clear as possible to be replicated.

5) Please, clarify if you are measuring isometric and isokinetic flexion-extension muscle strength of the trunk or of the core. Which muscles are considered being part of the core, by the way?

6) Please, make clear in the text that you are measuring the peak torque (N/m).

7) For both trunk and lower limb, the isokinetic peak torque was evaluated at 60o/s and 120o/s. Why these velocities were chosen? Are they safe for older adults? Are the peak torques presented in Table 2 the average or the greatest of 5 contractions? Is the coefficient of variance of each trial considered for the peak torque calculation (either average or maximal peak torque)?

8) In the postural stability measurement, give more information about the force platform used (example, sampling rate) and how variables were calculated (Matlab code? Specific force platform report? Other software?).

9) If I’m not wrong, the force platform evaluates the center of pressure (COP) displacement, right? If yes, make it clear in the text.

10) Please, explain why only velocity related measures were presented for single leg support. Why COP displacement (RMS) and Area (mm2) were not presented, as they are common measurement calculates from force platforms?

11) Which covariables were considered in ANCOVA analysis?

12) Please, provide more clear information about Cohen’s effect size values (i.e, value ranges for small, medium and large effects).
Validity of the findings: The main finding of the study was the interaction effect (group vs. time) for isometric hip extension (Pilates group showed greater peak torque than the control group). No additional effects were observed. In an intragroup analysis, training protocols showed moderate/large effects in isometric and isokinetic peak torque. In order to improve the understanding, I suggest that the authors present results of the trunk and hip isometric peak torques separately (lines 212 to 216). Additionally, the content of tables 6 and 7 can be presented together (just one table).

In a general analysis, the effects of Pilates training was great for isometric peak torque (both trunk and hip, independently of the movement direction), while the effects of muscular resistance training were great for isokinetic peak torque (both hip flexion and extension, independently of the angular velocity). Pilates training presented insignificant/small effects in isokinetic hip extension and flexion peak torque (independently of angular velocity). As groups were different at baseline for age and TUG performance, authors must make themselves clear about the adjustment of these differences in the ANCOVA (Did age is set as covariable for all analysis? Did TUG was set as covariable, at least for the mobility analysis?)

In relation to secondary outcomes, only mobility improved after exercise training (small effects for Pilates and medium effects for muscular resistance). No changes were observed for static balance.

The discussion section must be improved. Besides some misconceptions (example, in line 313 about the muscular resistance training used being considered as a multicomponent training by the authors), evidence of the importance of trunk and hip strength for balance and functional capacity need to be explored. Also, isometric contraction is very common in Pilates exercises and this must be pointed in the discussion. Even being a secondary outcome, is important to explain the absence of results in the static balance after the exercise training protocols studied.

I recommend that the author rewrite the conclusion. I disagree with the statement that Pilates and muscular resistance exercise training brought similar results to strength variables analyzed. As described above, Pilates presented insignificant/small effects for isokinetic hip extension peak torque, while the effect of muscular resistance on isokinetic hip peak torques was medium/large. In addition, there are no data in the manuscript that support Pilates contribution to a reduced risk of falling and dying in older women.
Additional comments: I have nothing more to add.


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: PILATES VERSUS RESISTANCE TRAINING ON TRUNK STRENGTH AND BALANCE ADAPTATIONS IN OLDER WOMEN: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The primary and the secondary outcomes are well defined in the text and they match with the ones described in the clinicaltrials.gov protocol. But Cochrane suggest that primary outcomes should be not much. I encourage the authors to try to diminish the number of primary outcomes.
Experimental design: Randomized and controlled clinical trials should present possible adverse events related to the interventions.
Validity of the findings: The clinical implications should be extended. It is necessary to give more evidence on how the results impact on professional practice.
Additional comments: The quality of the RCT is high enough as it follows closely the CONSORT statement. Also, the authors added the CONSORT checklist as a supplement file. In relation to this, I would like the authors to explain why they have conducted an intention-to-treat (ITT) design.


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: PILATES VERSUS RESISTANCE TRAINING ON TRUNK STRENGTH AND BALANCE ADAPTATIONS IN OLDER WOMEN: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors did a great job in the manuscript and most of the suggestions were incorporated at the new version of it. Some minor comments are pointed below:

1) lines 39 - 41: Check the abstract conclusion (seems the same as the first version. Please, adjust for the current manuscript conclusion);

2) line 61: Again, be careful with generalizations!!! Reference 11 included postmenopausal older women with osteoporosis (make this clear in the introduction);

3) lines 61-63: the phrase needs to be improved. Suggestion:  "Thus, the measurement of isokinetic and isometric hip and trunk strength can offer important information about physical factors related to healthy aging".”

5) lines 66: I still think that the multicomponent training assumption is not clear for the reader. As is written, it seems more machine resistance training than multicomponent training itself. As commented before, multicomponent training includes two or more of the following exercises: muscle resistance/strength, walking/endurance, balance and/or flexibility. I recommend the inclusion of this information that can help to support the idea that Pilates is a multicomponent training regime (as the authors pointed in the answer file for the reviewers). In addition, I think that it is not clear that balance training was included in both protocols (mainly in the muscular group). If I’m not wrong, a program is considered multicomponent if all components (in the present case, muscle resistance and balance) have the same weight in the training (duration and/or volume).

6) lines 66-69: The cited reference (number 12) is about Pilates training and not about muscle resistance training. The phrase seems to be a little bit out of the context which is justified due to the confusion with the definition of multicomponent training. The authors must make themselves more clear and avoid generalizations. As this phrase is related to Pilates, I believe that it is more adequate to change its position (after line 79) or suppress it.

7) line 73: What do the authors mean about dual-task changes? I checked reference number 15 and nothing is mentioned about the benefits of Pilates training in dual-task performance. Please, review this phrase.

8) line 177: displacement velocity of what? Center of pressure (COP), I guess. The authors affirm that this information was included in the new version of the manuscript (in the answer file for the reviewers), but I couldn't find it.

9) line 179: What is SB (single leg balance? static balance?)? Please, make all abbreviations clear.

10) line 182: Please, specify which TUG velocity (usual or fast) was performed.

11) line 183: Please, modify the phrase “The best time was recorded” to “The best time was used in the analyzes”.

12) line 282: I think that the word “manual” is missing (ie., manual muscle tester).

13) lines 293-294: the phrase is a little bit confusing. I didn't understand what the authors mean with “the incidence of exercise regarding hip muscles” (would it be: the prevalence of exercises regarding hip muscle in the Pilates protocols?).

14) line 319: The number of the cited reference is missing.

15) line 348: Did the authors exclude reference number 54? If yes, it must be suppressed from the final reference list.
Experimental design: Nothing to add
Validity of the findings: Nothing to add
Additional comments: Nothing to add


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: PILATES VERSUS RESISTANCE TRAINING ON TRUNK STRENGTH AND BALANCE ADAPTATIONS IN OLDER WOMEN: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I agree with the text.
Experimental design: I agree with the text.
Validity of the findings: I agree with the text.
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: PILATES VERSUS RESISTANCE TRAINING ON TRUNK STRENGTH AND BALANCE ADAPTATIONS IN OLDER WOMEN: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: not to add
Experimental design: not to add
Validity of the findings: not to add
Additional comments: The authors responded to all the questions made. I just have one last commentary. Dual-task performance refers to the ability to conduct two tasks simultaneously, such as walking while talking on the phone or while holding a tray. The transference of the benefits of exercise training to the dual-task performance itself is very difficult. As far as I know, we don't have papers that support the benefit of Pilates in dual-task performance. I let the authors decide if they want to keep the following phrase: "Furthermore, during recent years a new type of training program called Pilates has been included as an effective method for enhancing dual-task changes". If yes, they need to change the reference (Wells et al., 2012), once this review paper did not support the effectiveness of Pilates on dual-task performance.


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: LONG NON-CODING RNA, LINC01614 AS A POTENTIAL BIOMARKER FOR PROGNOSTIC PREDICTION IN BREAST CANCER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors presented the relevant information that supports the hypothesis of the study.
Experimental design: The experimental design is adequate. In addition, the authors were transplanted in providing the R programming code used in the analyzes.
Validity of the findings: The results are interesting and direct new investigations. Despite the prognostic impact well described by the authors, the pathophysiological function of LINC01614 is restricted to interpretations by GSEA that merit future investigations. However, the authors recognize these limitations in the discussion of the results.
Additional comments: Wang and colleagues report an exploratory study of potential long non-coding RNA as biomarkers and predictors of prognosis in breast cancer patients. Using a robust database, the authors identified the long non-coding RNA LINC01614 differently expressed and impacting the clinical outcome of breast cancer patients (hazard ratio> 1 and p <0.01). Interestingly, LINC01614 was an independent marker of prognosis when analyzed with classic risk covariates. The study is well written and illustrated, and R programming code was provided. This reviewer requests some clarification, as described below.

-Please include a Table describing the population of breast cancer patients included in the study (similar to the data presented in Supplementary Table 2). This information will help readers understand the population studied.

- It is unclear what the cut-off point was used for stratifying patients into high- and low-LINC01614 in analyzes in GSEA analyzes. If it was the median, I believe the correct one is "high- and low-expression" instead of "high and low-risk". Please review the use of the term in the description of results, figures, and legends.

- In Figure 2, include the number of subject in each group.

- In Figure 4, include the value of NES, FDR, and p.


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: LONG NON-CODING RNA, LINC01614 AS A POTENTIAL BIOMARKER FOR PROGNOSTIC PREDICTION IN BREAST CANCER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: It is very interesting work. However, there are some points that need to be addressed:

1)	It is recommended that a native speaker review the paper.

2)	Page 7, line 56: the abbreviation “HER2” could be replaced by sentence: “”and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)”.

3)	In supplemental files Fig. S1. Legend use “Workflow” instead of “Work flow”

4)	Results must not be interpreted within results section, but in discussion, for example: Page 11 line 143: “These results suggested that LINC01614 might contribute.....”. Check your results please.

5)	Page 14, line 195: “non-samll”, to replace by “non-small”
Experimental design: 1)	Page 9, lines 85-92: It is not completely clear how many lncRNAS was used for each analyze (12727?, 929?, 824?, 4537?,….), is difficult to understand.

2)	In supplemental files Fig. S1.: the workflow is very confusing, because there are too many tasks in the flow, authors need to reorganize the tasks flow and identify the execution order.

3)	Pages 19, 20, 25 and 26: The authors in figure 3 describe a result with statistical analysis using Kaplan-Meier estimates, but this analysis was not addressed elsewhere in the manuscript. I suggest adding some information about this analysis in both material and method / results and discussion.

4) It was necessary to include in the supplemental files the tables used for statistical analysis using R.
Validity of the findings: 1)	Page 14, lines 206-207: the authors suggest that: “some of the statistics were not significant probably because of the small sample size”. You could have used other databases, such as: noncode, RNAcentral, lncRNAdb. It is well known that such analyzes need to be thoroughly explored.

2)	Vishnubalaji et al (Cell Death Discovery, 2019, V5, N: 109, pp 109) have shown that LINC01614 as unfavorable prognostic marker in Breast Cancer Please explain why your findings are not consistent with those found by these authors.
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: LONG NON-CODING RNA, LINC01614 AS A POTENTIAL BIOMARKER FOR PROGNOSTIC PREDICTION IN BREAST CANCER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The English have to be reviewed by a professional to improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript.
Experimental design: No comments.
Validity of the findings: The authors should highlight the limitations of their study.
Additional comments: This is an interesting manuscript addressing an important aspect in the field of breast cancer. The work was well designed and performed, the results are interesting and of interest and utility to workers in the same branch of the field and deserves to be published.
Tables and Figures are appropriated.

Minor comment:
-    In the discussion section, the authors should highlight the limitations of their study and underline the potential application of their findings in clinics.
-    The English have to be reviewed by a professional to improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript.


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

Input:
Title: LONG NON-CODING RNA, LINC01614 AS A POTENTIAL BIOMARKER FOR PROGNOSTIC PREDICTION IN BREAST CANCER
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The current text has been improved. The manuscript contains interesting results, which are well contextualized and based on good references.
Experimental design: The experimental design is appropriate.
Validity of the findings: The manuscript contains interesting results and the analyzes are adequate.
Additional comments: The authors made all requested corrections. In addition, new information added improves the manuscript.


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

Input:
Title: LONG NON-CODING RNA, LINC01614 AS A POTENTIAL BIOMARKER FOR PROGNOSTIC PREDICTION IN BREAST CANCER
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The authors responded appropriately to the comments.
The work is good and adds knowledge to the study of biomarkers for breast cancer prognosis.


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 AND PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS OF CHINESE SACBROOD VIRUS ISOLATES FROM APIS MELLIFERA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper reports sequence  of a strain of Chinese Sacbrood virus (CSBV strain named AmCSBV-SDLY)  which was isolated from Apis mellifera. This isolate showed highest similarity to the previously reported CSBV isolates from Apis cerana (with highest similarity with the GenBank entry KM495267 reaching  97% nt / 98% amino acid identity).

The main drawback of the MS is the lack of biological data on this CSBV strain. The authors did not provide data on how widespread AmCSBV-SDLY is in Apis mellifera in China. This could be addressed by devising strand specific qPCR for AmCSBV-SDLY.

Also, additional information have to be provided to prove that the published sequence (which was assembled using several RT-PCR fragments) indeed corresponds to a single RNA genome. It cannot be ruled out that several CSBV isolates could co-exist in the sampled honeybees.
Experimental design: The sequence was assembled using a series of RT-PCR fragments (n=8,   according the primers shown in Table 1) and a 3'RACE products which together covered entire genome. The authors should specify how many plasmid clones were sequenced for each RT-PCR fragment and if any nt variation was observed between the clones covering the same region. It is also not clear yet if there were variation in the  overlapping sections of short RT-PCR fragments used.

Other comments ( also included in Annotated PDF attached)

Line 27
"Infected" ->
Was it artificial infection?  If not, "infected" could be deleted.

Line 38
"polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis"
-> "protein composition analysis by SDS polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis

Line 40
"ORF" - "ORF product"

Line 81
Chinese -> Asian

Line 134
"Fifty infected A. mellifera".
Were they just symptomatic or were artificially infected?

Line 138
"supernatant was then successively passed"
provide more details, supernatant after which centrifugation

Line 168
"Amplification of the full-length CSBV-SDLY genome" -> AmCSBV-SDLY genome sequencing"
I understood form materials and methods that no amplification of full genome (I.e. single 8.7 kip RT-PCR product) was carried out.

Line 183
"The amplified nucleotide fragments were assembled" -> "Nucleotide sequences of the amplified RT PCR fragments were assembled" (I understand no single cDNA fragment, 8 kbp full-length size was constructed.)

Line 184
"Multiple nucleotide ... "  - indicate if sequence variation was reported between clones covering the same SBV genome regions.

Line 192
"A bootstrap value of 1,000 replicates was 193 applied to yield a robust phylogeny." -> "The phylogenetic tree was bootstrapped 1000 times and bootstrap values placed
on each branch (Fig. ?)"

Line 279
"was classified into a branch". -> "belonged to the clade"

Line 284
"Similarity analysis" -> "Similarity profile analysis"

Line 383
"the previously reported strains of CSBV" -> ? "the previously reported strains of CSBV  which infect  Apis cerana."

Line 384
"species barrier and cause death" -> "species barrier, infect and cause death..."

Line 386
"...between host populations" -> "between hosts
Validity of the findings: The paper reports detection in Apis mellifera of a CSBV strain closely related to a CSBV strain infecting A. cerana. The published sequence is not entirely novel, with 97% nt and 98% aa identity to one of previously sequenced CSBV strains. One of the paper novel findings relates to detection of recombination events between SBV strains. In this respect it is very important to provide additional data to demonstrate that all RT-PCR fragments sequences of which were assembled indeed derived from a single RNA genome.
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 AND PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS OF CHINESE SACBROOD VIRUS ISOLATES FROM APIS MELLIFERA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: .
Experimental design: .
Validity of the findings: .
Additional comments: This paper provides new data concerning the structure and variation of one isolate of the Sacbrood virus (SBV) obtained from Shandong, China (AmCSBV-SDLY). The isolate was obtained from Apis mellifera honeybees and completely sequenced, compared with other available sequences and a molecular phylogenetic tree was inferred.
The authors showed that, AmCSBV-SDLY clustered with other previously reported Chinese and Asian strains originating from A. cerana (AC genotype) but was separate from the SBV genomes from Europe originating from A. mellifera (AM genotype) and speculated that AmCSBV-SDLY could cross the species barrier and cause death in A. mellifera larvae based on the finding of the deletion mutation at the amino acid 369 residue 2,128.
The host species specificity for SBV has been discussed for a long time in a scientific literature. New data could enrich knowledge in this field. However, nucleotide and phylogenetic analysis of determined sequences was carried out insufficient to make definite conclusions. The experiments were conducting properly but it contains little new information. To my opinion, further analysis regarding virulence, biological properties of the viral strains, host specificity is needed. Therefore I would advise authors to complete their research and revise a manuscript.
In my opinion, the phylogenetic analysis is insufficient. Since the authors have sequenced only 1 complete SBV genome from A. mellifera species, they should sequence some more SBV genomes and analyze any genomic region in detail to estimate host species specificity, if it is possible. Besides, it is possible to carry out genetic analysis due to a special option of Mega 6 to estimate genetic diversity between different genetic groups, if they exist.
Detail comments are described below.
Method:
1. Table 1. Synthetic oligonucleotides for amplification of the CSBV genome
These primers do not have a large enough overlap (100-150 nucleotides) so when assembling the sequence using DNASTAR software, whether it ensures the continuous pairing without the gaps due to the perplexity at the two ends of the sequence during sequencing.
2. In the summary, the authors mentioned the use of MEGA 5.0 software to construct the phylogenetic tree however a MEGA 4.1 package was used in the method (line 190).
3.  Line 101:
Sentence “ecent studies have shown that CSBV has no association with natural infections of A. mellifera” should be rewritten and add references for this.
4. Line 183:
	The sentence: “The amplified nucleotide fragments were assembled to generate the entire genome of AmCSBV-SDLY using the DNASTAR program” is repeated of the upper part so should be deleted.
5. Line 237:
The sentence: “Multiple sequence comparisons showed that the sequence of AmCSBV-SDLY was similar to the sequences of the previously reported SBV/CSBV strains.” is repeated so should be deleted.
6. Line 241:
AmCSBV-SDLY was least similar (89.5% to 90.4% identity) to other SBVs but showed maximum similarity with CSBV-FZ-KM495267.1.
With how many percent similarity with CSBV-FZ-KM495267.1?
7. Line 374-380: ‘’However, AmCSBV-SDLY was isolated after CSBV-JL2014-KU574661.1, and the recombinant signals obtained from CSBV-FZ-KM495267.1, CSBV-JL2014-KU574661.1, and CSBV-GD AF469603.1 were detected by BootScan (Fig. 7); hence, we speculate that AmCSBV-SDLY may be a recombinant virus strain and its parent strain was derived from CSBV-FZ-KM495267.1, CSBV-JL2014-KU574661.1, and CSBV GD-AF469603.1’’ should be rewritten.
There is no evidence in the manuscript showing that AmCSBV-SDLY was isolated after CSBV-JL2014-KU574661.1.
8. References should be cited as specified of the journal in the text and the reference list.
For articles of the same author published in the same year, additional indicators such as a, b, and c are needed for follow-up (eg. Mingxiao et al., have 3 articles published in 2011 so please cite as Mingxiao et al., 2011a, b, c respectively).
9. The reference for Nguyen Thi Bich Nga and Le Thanh Hoa was published in 2013 but not 2016.
10. Line 137-138: ‘‘according to the method of Ma et al. (Mingxiao et al.,2011)’’. It is not sure whether Ma and Mingxiao are two different people or they are the same person? And please check throughout the manuscript.


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

Input:
Title: GENETIC AND PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS OF CHINESE SACBROOD VIRUS ISOLATES FROM APIS MELLIFERA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript reports and analyses complete nucleotide sequence of Chinese Sacbrood virus CSBV strain AmCSBV-SDLY-2016. Although CSBV, a type of Scbrood virus (SBV), is common in Apis cerana, the reported AmCSBV-SDLY was detected in Apis mellifera. The sequence of  AmCSBV-SDLY-2016 is very similar to other strains of CSBV/SBV with the higher nt identity (97%) being observed with such CSBV strains isolated from  Apis cerana as CSBV-FZ, Genbank accession KM495267,  and AcSBV-Viet1 Genbank KM884990).

Although AmCSBV-SDLY might not be the first CSBV type virus identified in Apis mellifera, - Fig. 1 shows that there are other sequences which belong to "Apis-cerana - CSBV clade) which were isolated from Apis mellifera (Fig. 1, sequences with prefix "Am-" AmSBV-V4-2014, AmSBV-Viet6-2014).

It is mentioned in Materials and methods that 359 colony-level samples were analysed, but it was not specified how many of these were Apis mellifera and Apis cerana (lines 131). Confidence intervals for the proportion of Apis mellifera colonies and Apis cerana colonies infected with CSBV should be calculated and included.

Table 4 (larval challenge) should be re-done to include description of treatments (Group description rater than number. Provide 95% confidence intervals for the proportion dead pupae and statistical significance of differences in mortality between groups for each repeat separately.

Other points to be addressed:

Line 35-37.
The nucleotide sequence was not identified by electron microscopy, SDS PAAG, or immunodiffusion assay. It is clear from Materials and methods (lines 219-228) that a series of RT-PCR fragments were generated using SBV/CSBV -specific primers (Table 3).

Line 130-134 and Table 1.
Analysis of "359 samples" should be moved to Results section. Specify how many Apis mellifera and Apis cerana samples were tested, calculate and provide the 95% confidence interval for a proportion of CSBV infected Apis mellifera ad Apis cerana colonies.

Line 221.
"genome was amplified by RT-PCR" -> "genome sequence was determined by Sanger sequencing of the RT-PCR fragments". Note that SBV genome was not amplified, instead several cDNA fragments corresponding to the sections of the CSBV genomic RNA were amplified by RT-PCR and their sequences were assembled in silico.

Fig. 1.
In the figure mark sequences which were sequenced in this study. Also specify hosts (A.cerana or A. mellifera) for the Genbank sequences. Include bootstrap values.

Line 271
"bystrand" -> "by strand"
No strand-specific qPCR analysis is presented and discussed in the section lines 271-279.

Lines 280-284
Is is possibly to distinguish serologically CSBV and SBV in the assay?

Lines 290-296 (Table 4, Larval Challenge)
Include description of the treatment groups in the table. Provide confidence intervals for the mortality proportions, provide statistical significance of the differences in mortality between groups.

Lines 322, 323.
Discuss in which parts  of the CSBV polyprotein deletions were observed.

Lines 404-406
This study presents only isolate of AC type CSBV in Apis mellifera. This is not enough to claim that CSBV (AC type) "circulating in honey bee populations for a long time".

Line 438
The claim that AmCSBV-SDLY-2016 due to deletion at the codon 2128 is not substantiated.
Experimental design: Design is appropriate, but there are questions to reporting the results (see above).
Validity of the findings: See comments above
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 AND PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS OF CHINESE SACBROOD VIRUS ISOLATES FROM APIS MELLIFERA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: .
Experimental design: .
Validity of the findings: .
Additional comments: The authors have adaquately revised this paper and it is much improved. However, the paper still has some grammatical flaws and/or some typing errors that need to be checked carefully before publication.


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 MICROSATELLITE MARKERS FOR THE PINE CATKIN SAWFLY XYELA CONCAVA (HYMENOPTERA, XYELIDAE) AND THEIR APPLICATION IN PHYLOGEOGRAPHY AND POPULATION GENETICS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: I felt that the motivation for the study was elegant, straightforward, and clear. I do think that the authors could more directly identify the knowledge gap that is being filled by the study (i.e. first microsatellite set for Xyelidae, as commented on line 43).

I also greatly appreciate the thoroughness with which the methods are explained; the provided detail is more than sufficient to enable reproduction. However, a few additional details could be provided with respect to how specimens were treated during and after DNA extraction (as commented on lines 79 & 83).
Validity of the findings: I think the results motivate a more nuanced phylogeographic discussion than what is provided; instead, the discussion seems to skirt around some possible interesting implications of the results. For instance, the authors briefly mention some phenomena which may have led to the observed population structure (lines 205-207), but provide no context as to how they might relate to the habitat, broader distribution, or population history of this species. Some of this context is given in the conclusions sections (e.g. host plant phylogeography) but I think more is needed in the discussion to help readers follow the line of thought, and to enable them to reasonably evaluate whether or not the observed subtle, recently-established population structure (lines 233-234) might be consistent with this species’ geographic context. In particular, it would be helpful to provide more information about its distribution and habitat, either in the introduction or early on in the discussion. Otherwise, to somebody unfamiliar with the study system, it’s not clear how isolated or connected the three studied populations might be. My comments on the attached PDF go into a little more detail on this matter.

I think it is also worthwhile to include some further discussion of the differences between the nuclear and mitochondrial results, particularly with regard to special considerations for the mitochondrial genomes of non-apocritans. Prous et al. (2019; preprint) briefly discuss this in the context of sawflies, for which mitochondrial introgression appears to be common. Essentially, the fact that sawflies are haplodiploid, but typically have lower mitochondrial mutation rates than those observed in Apocrita, might result in a higher rate of mitochondrial introgression between closely-related evolutionary lineages. Sloan et al. (2017) suggest that mitochondrial introgression might be one of two solutions to the problem of accumulated mitochondrial mutation load (the alternative being compensatory co-evolution of the nuclear genome); they hypothesized that mitochondrial introgression should be favoured in taxa in which mutation load accumulates slowly (e.g. sawflies). Patten et al. (2015), meanwhile, showed that hybridizing/interbreeding lineages of haplodiploid organisms are (at least mathematically) strongly biased toward mitochondrial as opposed to nuclear introgression. Taken together, one might therefore expect sawflies to exhibit artificially strong population genetic structure when measured using mitochondrial markers like COI (as mitochondrial haplotypes might tend to homogenize within a population) whereas nuclear markers might suggest less strong genetic structure between populations. Interestingly, the results presented here are consistent with these hypotheses, so I think mitochondrial introgression is at least worth a mention. The relevant references are listed below.

Patten, M. M., Carioscia, S. A., & Linnen, C. R. (2015). Biased introgression of mitochondrial and nuclear genes: A comparison of diploid and haplodiploid systems. Molecular Ecology, 24(20), 5200–5210. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13318

Prous, M., Lee, K. M., & Mutanen, M. (2019). Detection of cross-contamination and strong mitonuclear discordance in two species groups of sawfly genus. BioRxiv. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/525626

Sloan, D. B., Havird, J. C., & Sharbrough, J. (2017). The on-again, off-again relationship between mitochondrial genomes and species boundaries. Molecular Ecology, 26(8), 2212–2236. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13959
Additional comments: I made a few minor suggestions about wording in order to improve clarity. As well, minor changes to the figures are needed to improve clarity for readers with colourblindness. Other less important comments throughout the manuscript are included in the attached annotated PDF.

Overall, I very much enjoyed reading this manuscript. I find the choice of study system to be particularly interesting – which might incidentally colour my above suggestions to include more details on that topic! I apologize for submitting the review one day late; I wanted to be sure to give it sufficient time & attention. Thank you for sharing your work, and I look forward to reading the finished version.


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 MICROSATELLITE MARKERS FOR THE PINE CATKIN SAWFLY XYELA CONCAVA (HYMENOPTERA, XYELIDAE) AND THEIR APPLICATION IN PHYLOGEOGRAPHY AND POPULATION GENETICS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: The title is slightly misleading on the role of high throughput sequencing. In the MS 16 SSRs were developed and used in a population study. Given the approach used, 16 SSRs seems a very low return. Also, it is slightly unclear which question(s) the authors are trying to answer apart from investigation/describing the population genetic differentiation of the single species from 3 populations.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: My main critique is that the title and the content of the MS are not well aligned with respect to "using next generation sequencing" or "new approach". The approach to use NGS to develop SSRs is really not new anymore, but can be considered standard by now. Also, the term "next generation sequencing" should not be used anymore, since a third generation is already well established. If something like that is used, then something like high throughput seq.(HTS) is more suitable. In general, the paper is mainly about using the SSRs to determine diversity and divergence in/between 3 Xyela populations, thus the title could reflect that more.
I was surprised that using HTS only yielded 16 SSRs in the end and not something in the range of 30+ at least. At 16 SSRs with a few dropout due to monomorphisms, a study could already be having too few markers.

SSR development from HTS reads (L85 etc)
This paragraphs needs substantial improvements on technical specifics, i.e. Was it single end or paired end sequencing, if the former, then specify why not the better suited paired end? How was the enrichment done?, how were SSR containing reads identified and selected? "sequenced ON the ... platform". How many reads (i.e. estimated coverage) were generated? Why were only single reads used and not more information leveraged? Specifically, I think having sequenced a diploid individual, using stacking or contig-assembly methods for the reads would provide information on which SSRs might be polymoprhic within this individual, i.e. directly yield potentially a multitude of polymorphic SSR markers. Are the reads deposited somewhere? How were they QC'ed? Which version of MiSeq sequencing kit was used? This is important because in the past 300bp sequencing runs on MiSeq had big problems for quite some time and read qualities dropped off substantially after 200bp.

Smaller remarks:
L24 specify the order "Hymenoptera" in addition to the family Xyelidae so that unfamiliar readers can relate easier.
L35 the cited paper is from 2012 and since then there have been multiple papers of more solid/comprehensive phylogenies of Hymenoptera, e.g. in Cell, which might be good to mention / check for consistency.
L86 Where is this individual from?
L97 More information on how close/far related the Pleroneura is from Xyela.
L100 Specify the gradient
L101 Are 5µl PCRs working reliably at this low volume? Which platics / PCR machine are you using for this?
L119 Here you state some markers were monomorphic. Were they not found to be polymorphic just before? Where
L132 40 cycles seems to be very high for a PCR which typically plateaus after 25-20 cycles.
L135 ExoSAP is not really a purification but more like an inactivation of relevant DNA components (dNTPs/Primers).
L206 these important aspects for Xyela biology should be also provided/discussed... in the introduction. What is known about parthenogenesis?
L211: having genotypes of individuals, which of the individuals were haploid and which were diploid, i.e. males/female? and how was ploidy considered in the analysis and how could it be influencing the results?
L217 I think the arguments against STRUCTURe should be discussed further and should include arguments from other papers looking into this. I would have assumed that maybe there is too little discriminatory power in the data and thatswhy STRUCTURE is perhaps not finding the different clusters.

Multiple places mention the names of the population according to the sampling locations. The actual names are quite meaningless for the reader, thus specify at least once, where the location is, i.e. US, Utah.


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 MICROSATELLITE MARKERS FOR THE PINE CATKIN SAWFLY XYELA CONCAVA (HYMENOPTERA, XYELIDAE) AND THEIR APPLICATION IN PHYLOGEOGRAPHY AND POPULATION GENETICS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: The authors have adequately addressed my comments on the previous version of the manuscript.
Validity of the findings: The discussion is much improved and more easily followed in the revised manuscript. The authors have added sufficient context to make clear to the reader how their interpretation of the results is supported. As well, the added text about mitochondrial introgression is incorporated well, and its specific implications to this study system are very nicely highlighted.
Additional comments: I have made a few more suggestions about wording in the interest of clarity, which I leave to the discretion of the authors. Overall, it seems to me that the authors have more than adequately addressed both my comments and those of the other reviewer, and enthusiastically so. Thank you once more for sharing your work.

I have recommended minor revisions to give the authors the opportunity to address a few very minor points indicated on the attached PDF. Please use the comments panel of your PDF viewer to be sure to catch everything. I will not need to see the revised manuscript.


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF MINIATURIZATION IN THE ANATOMY OF THE MINUTE SPRINGTAIL MESAPHORURA SYLVATICA (HEXAPODA: COLLEMBOLA: TULLBERGIIDAE)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This is an accurate and welcome contribution to the knowledge of morphology in miniaturized arthropods, the first ever for a member of the Collembola. The ms. reveals both the technical skills and the excellent familiarity with the subject of miniaturization, as expected from the AA.
Besides a few truly minor points annotated on the returned copy of the ms., I have only a serious point to raise, one however that can be addressed easily and quickly, that is the very inadequate figure legends, which are largely incomplete or inaccurate. To give one example, the legend for Figure 2 does not give an explanation for lanephr, Mn, Mx, pst, fur1,2,3, en1, eg, ova, and lists 'an' rather than 'AN' as in the figure.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF MINIATURIZATION IN THE ANATOMY OF THE MINUTE SPRINGTAIL MESAPHORURA SYLVATICA (HEXAPODA: COLLEMBOLA: TULLBERGIIDAE)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is generally well written and clear, with a proper use of the English language. It represent a coherent body of work that constitute an appropriate unity of publication. I recommend that the authors spend some more words in the introduction and in the conclusion to place the topic in a broader context, in particular by explaining how knowledge about miniaturization can improve our understanding of the biology of animals and possibly by providing some examples of it. The data to support the article is clear (figures) though I suggest that some long stretches of text can be avoided by summarizing results and observations in other animals in one (or multiple) tables.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The paper is well written and the content is sound and scientifically valid. I think that the flow can be improved in a couple of parts to improve readibility, possibly by summarizing information, maybe in the form of a table (see my comment in the pdf).


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF MINIATURIZATION IN THE ANATOMY OF THE MINUTE SPRINGTAIL MESAPHORURA SYLVATICA (HEXAPODA: COLLEMBOLA: TULLBERGIIDAE)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper has potential for making a valuable contribution toward our understanding of the evolution of extremely small body sizes in metazoan animals. It is mainly well-written but see some minor wording suggestions below.
In general, the Methods section is not adequate. Many critical details are missing- see various comments below. At present the study could not be replicated by a reader of this paper.

Minor comments:
Line 43: “etc.” as a reference not appropriate- fill in missing citations.
45: Add citation for arthropod/unicellular size overlap. Many readers will be amazed by this.
49: See & cite recent papers by Eberhard & Wcislo on miniaturization in spiders.
51-52: Reword to “Some of these changes have evolved convergently in several taxa…”
54: Delete “and many more”
70-87: This section is overly detailed yet does not provide critical information for interpreting what is already known. Just listing species/tissues studied does not tell us what the gaps are in our knowledge. What do we not know yet that your data/study addresses?
It might be useful to turn this block of text into a table listing species by what tissues was studied. Then in the text of the paper, briefly describe any relevant patterns seen. What, if anything, do all these studies tell us about these very small-bodied animals? Even “big” collembola are still tiny!
89: Units needed! “only 0.4 long (Zimdars and Dunger, 1994).”
93: “analyze the effects of miniaturization.” Briefly state how you do this- by comparing with other collembola? Other arthropods?
105: More details on histology methods are needed: recipes/sources of reagents, or at least cite papers giving these methods in detail.
110: Again, more details needed in methods. Give exact names & versions of all software & hardware (cameras); what resolution were photos taken at? Illumination source? Etc. Make it possible for other researchers to replicate your methods exactly.
127: Critical- How were the measurements made? Need details in the Methods section!
Figures are almost all 3D reconstructions. It is important to describe carefully how they were made. How were different tissues identified?
137: “The cuticle thickness is 0.31–1.24 μm thick and longitudinal sections 0m (M = 0.57, n = 80).” How was this determined? In general- you must provide detailed explicit methods for how all data were collected throughout the Results.
202-349: I don’t see the value of naming every muscle in a primary literature paper about the evolution of miniaturization. This section can be reduced or deleted- or only mention if there are novel/surprising structures (or absences) that deviate from previously described arthropod or collembolan anatomy.
Experimental design: See above
Validity of the findings: See above
Additional comments: See 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: EFFECTS OF MINIATURIZATION IN THE ANATOMY OF THE MINUTE SPRINGTAIL MESAPHORURA SYLVATICA (HEXAPODA: COLLEMBOLA: TULLBERGIIDAE)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: The text needs a thorough English language revision. There are several language ambiguities that should be corrected.

Throughout the Results: all measurements should be presented as actual measurements with variation, mean, and number of specimens measured, not just stating ‘about’ measurements. I would recommend adding a table with all these data and referring to it throughout the text.

Throughout the text: After referring to a species once with the full scientific name, refer to it with an abbreviated name, e.g. Anurida maritima -> A. maritima.

The authors should pay special attention to the readability of the text and how to streamline reading the text together with the figures. In a descriptive study which consists largely of lists of anatomical features the structure of the text and frequent references to the correct figure panels is essential, especially in places where several figures are needed to follow the text. Keep the reader in mind when writing!

In the chapter ‘Muscular system’ the different sections (Musculature of the head, the thorax, etc.) should be clearly separated and marked (with bold text or subheadings) to make it easier to read and follow.

Throughout the figures and figure legends: Make sure all abbreviations found in the figure are explained in the figure legend (except when it’s stated that they are in the main text), and that all of the terms explained in the legend are found in the figure.

Specific comments:

Lines 127-134 Description of general morphology: Most people associate collembolans with the furca, so you should describe the absence of it here. Also mention the absence of eyes here so it doesn’t come as a surprise in line 426.

Typing error in the Table S1 heading.
Experimental design: A minor weakness:
No mention of animal collection permits, or 'animals were handled according to all applicable laws' statement.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: This self-contained, descriptive study describes the anatomy of a minute collembolan species, constituting the first data to study miniaturizarion in non-insect arthropods. The research is done well and the results are a valuable addition to the existing body of knowledge. My main concerns are about the language and the presentation of the data, which, in my opinion, need major revision. Please see the annotated pdf of the manuscript for more details.


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: EFFECTS OF MINIATURIZATION IN THE ANATOMY OF THE MINUTE SPRINGTAIL MESAPHORURA SYLVATICA (HEXAPODA: COLLEMBOLA: TULLBERGIIDAE)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 5

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper deals with the anatomical description and 3D reconstruction of the Collembola Mesaphorura sylvatica, a specially minute species, and comment on the effects of miniaturization on the anatomy.
The description is clear and comprehensive, and globally well-written. A small number of  language corrections are need, that I annotated in the manuscript pdf.

The review of previous anatomical descriptions of Collembola seems comprehensive to me, and the works of major authors, old and recent, were rightfully cited. I however recommend to improve the introduction by providing more general background/context for readers:

1- being not familiar with the concept and background knowledge on miniaturization, I would have appreciated a more consistent introduction to it. The introduction never really give indications of size scales at which miniaturization is studied, and some biological facts should be provided to introduce the field of study. I made further comments in the text.

2- a three or four lines presentation of the studied species should be provided : taxonomy, ecology and morphology: aside of size, Collembola species differ tremendously in habitus, a part of this being reflected in the split into 4 orders. I made further comments in the text,

Article structure is good and professional. I think that the muscular system description could be formatted into a table rather than in a 3.5 pages of telegraphic style, as it seems to always repeat the same structure.

The authors did not mention whether the 3D models would be shared as supplementary material. I think it should.
Experimental design: Lack of previous complete anatomical reference for a Collembola species is a limitation to comparative anatomy. This work provides such a need reference, that will be extremely useful for further investigations. Methods of investigation comply with high standard in my opinion.
Validity of the findings: Factual description is well-done. I suggest to beef up a bit the interpretation part, and clearly state what can be said of size change impact on the organism functions (if possible).
Additional comments: This is a nice and needed work. A comprehensive framework to study miniaturization with Collembola as a model should include descriptions and comparisons of closely related small and large species throughout the main lineages. I hope this is within your prospects.


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: EFFECTS OF MINIATURIZATION IN THE ANATOMY OF THE MINUTE SPRINGTAIL MESAPHORURA SYLVATICA (HEXAPODA: COLLEMBOLA: TULLBERGIIDAE)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper meets the standards established by the Journal.
Experimental design: The problem is clearly stated, original evidence has been obtained and clearly presented
Validity of the findings: Conclusion flows logically from data analysis and discussion.
Additional comments: In the revised version, the criticisms raised on the original submission have been satisfactorily addressed. Minor editorial suggestions are provided with the attached annotated files.


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: EFFECTS OF MINIATURIZATION IN THE ANATOMY OF THE MINUTE SPRINGTAIL MESAPHORURA SYLVATICA (HEXAPODA: COLLEMBOLA: TULLBERGIIDAE)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Figures:

Generally all figure panels should be referred to in the main text. Here figures 1, 5 and 6 are mentioned as entities but not by panels. Fig. panels 2A, B, D  and Fig. 3C are not mentioned in the text.

As I said in my previous review about the figures and legends: Make sure all abbreviations found in the figure are explained in the figure legend (except when it’s stated that they are in the main text), and that all of the terms explained in the legend are found in the figure.

Fig.1: explanation of “vl” is missing from the legend.

Fig. 3: explanation of “An” and “pst” is missing from the legend.

Fig. S1: The legend has the following items which are missing from the images: oes, ova, pst. The images have following items which are missing from the figure legend: oe, eg, sg, bp.

Table S2:

I found this table very useful! However, there are a couple of small things to correct:

skeleton volume is given in the table S2 as 0.048 but in the text (line 182) as 0.044 nl. Which one is correct?

To avoid confusion about the total volumes, please indicate clearly that the brain measurement is part of the CNS measurement, for example:
Central nervous system 	0.051	6.3
of which the brain		0.016	2.2

Table S3:

typing error in the table legend.

Main text:

The rebuttal letter makes no mention of a language revision, but I find this version much easier to read and understand than the original one.

Line 189: “The slender pharynx is about 4.2 μm (M = 4.2, n = 8).” Is that the diameter?

L213: Typo “Itterminates”

L218: Typo “gangliashift”

L275: delete “with”

L308: Typo “beexplained”

L340: replace “what” with “which”

References:

L52: Reference to Eberhard & Wcislo, 2011 is missing from the reference list.

L570: Reference to Manton, 1964 is not mentioned in the text.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The manuscript has improved greatly from the first version! Especially its readability and the flow of the text is much better. I am also mostly happy with the way the authors have addressed my previous concerns. In my opinion, there are only a few minor fixes that need to be done before the manuscript is in a publishable shape.


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: PHYLOGENETIC REVISION OF THE PSAMMOPHILIC TROGLODERUS LECONTE (COLEOPTERA: TENEBRIONIDAE), WITH BIOGEOGRAPHIC IMPLICATIONS FOR THE INTERMOUNTAIN REGION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I thought that the article was well-written, thoroughly researched and included all aspects of a well thought-out manuscript. It includes important taxonomic, phylogenetic and biogeographic data. I typically provide a large number of comments in my reviews but this manuscript requires only a small number of minor comments (included as comments in the pdf file attached).
Experimental design: The goals for this study are clear and the results based on up-to-date analytical methods. I like the paragraph on nomenclatural acts in electronic only journals.
Validity of the findings: The taxonomic, phylegenetic and biogeographic data are significant and useful to tell the evolutionary story of this genus of darkling beetle. The conclusions are well thought-out and the results will serve as very good hypotheses to test when supplementary data is available.
Additional comments: A well-written manuscript, looking forward to see it published.


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

Input:
Title: PHYLOGENETIC REVISION OF THE PSAMMOPHILIC TROGLODERUS LECONTE (COLEOPTERA: TENEBRIONIDAE), WITH BIOGEOGRAPHIC IMPLICATIONS FOR THE INTERMOUNTAIN REGION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Recommendation: Accept with major revisions

Comments:

Do you wish to remain anonymous?: Yes

Is the author aware of the background and source material to the problems set forth?: Yes

Are the conclusions justified by the evidence presented and the assumptions involved?: Yes

Are the illustrations and tables clear and understandable?: Yes

In number are they: Sufficient

This is a very interesting paper on a largely understudied biogeographic region that revises a genus and investigates its historical biogeography. It is well written and concise which is appreciated. In general, it is a very sound study and it is clear that the author is a real authority on the study organism. I only had two issues with the paper, once these and other comments are addressed it should be ready for final acceptance and publication: First, that the biogeographic analyses should not include multiple tips per-species as this violates some of the model assumptions in BioGeoBEARS. It will likely not change much when reanalyzed as all of the species are found in a single area but you will probably want your analyses to be sound. Second, I would suggest dropping the BEAST analyses or do a full investigation as to what is going on in the data to try and see if there are any parameters to be adjusted. Please see my comments below in the paper on this. Your other divergence date estimates are largely in concordance and overlapping with the geological processes of interest, so I am not sure what is gained by presenting the BEAST analyses that did not converge.

Smaller things:  Consider taking pictures of the TYPE labels rather than trying to transcribe verbatim. Also consider designating a new TYPE for T. nevadus as it seems to be lost.

See specific comments in attached word doc.
Experimental design: see word doc for specifics
Validity of the findings: see word doc for specifics
Additional comments: see word doc for specifics


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: PHYLOGENETIC REVISION OF THE PSAMMOPHILIC TROGLODERUS LECONTE (COLEOPTERA: TENEBRIONIDAE), WITH BIOGEOGRAPHIC IMPLICATIONS FOR THE INTERMOUNTAIN REGION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Some slight asymmetry or empty space in morphological and habitus figures.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: Within my knowledge the applicable data are provided and conclusions sound.
Additional comments: Line 682: Italicize “T. kandai” and please check for consistency throughout.

Line 745: Italicize “T. arcanus” and please check for consistency throughout.

Line 1002: Italicize “T. verpus” and please check for consistency throughout.

General note on morphological and habitus figures: A scale bar in each figure or each constituent element might be of use to readers; please consider adding, if practical.

Figure 3: Improve the cohesiveness of mouthparts C-E by better blending the overall gray background with off-gray background near each disarticulated mouthpart. A portion of D is overlapping B.

Figure 4. The use of both low-contrast reds and greens is likely to present issues for colorblind readers. Please consider an alternate highlight color.

Figure 6. Habitus E appears too dark to discern features; please lighten. Consider lightening C, G, and H too as they may appear darker on other computer monitors.


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: OXIDATIVE STRESS AS A POTENTIAL TARGET IN ACUTE KIDNEY INJURY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This is a timely and relevant review addressing the role of oxidative stress in acute kidney injury.
Some modifications can be done to improve the manuscript:
-When describing the physiological role of NO, more studies should be discussed, including those showing the role of NO in tubuloglomerular feedback and renal blood flow autoregulation.
-The review may benefit from a new section in which the authors could discuss recent studies regarding novel experimental strategies targeting oxidative stress in models of AKI and the state of art in the identification of new pharmacological targets in oxidative stress area.
-The relevance of references 43 and 47 in oxidative stress mediated injury during AKI needs to be further detailed.

- The “Sepsis induced AKI” section needs to be improved; it lacks information on how oxidative stress is relevant to this type of AKI.

-In the ischemia/reperfusion injury section, a conclusion paragraph needs to be added, so that the reader has a general idea on what sources of ROS are responsible for oxidative stress during AKI and which mechanisms are turned on to try to reduce oxidative damage.

-Furthermore, I suggest the addition of a Figure in which the authors summarize the sources of ROS in AKI, anti-oxidant mechanisms and possible targets.

 -Apoptosis is misspelled in the abstract.