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: VALIDITY AND USEFULNESS OF THE STUDENT-ATHLETES’ MOTIVATION TOWARD SPORT AND ACADEMICS QUESTIONNAIRE: A BAYESIAN MULTILEVEL APPROACH
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This research utilized a Psychometric Structure of the SAMSAQ-IT/A (SAMSAQ-PT).

Four latent factors were ultimately used in four variant phases of the Research method and participants used or each.

Cognitive interviews were performed.

Professional language is utilized.

The data charts were clear and congruent with the written description.

Structure conforms to peer J standards
Experimental design: Cross sectional and longitudinal samples. Bayesian method combining information previously known and shared amongst all participants.  The Portuguese version of (SAMSAQ-IT; Guidotti &Capranica,2013).

The four phases were detailed and results were explained.

This is within the scope of Peer J Journal. Investigation demonstrated time and effort.

The three primary categories for the student-athlete responses were:
Academic motivation, Sports motivation, and Career motivation. Likert scale was implemented also.

Rigorous analysis in connection with the overall scope of the research is evident.
Validity of the findings: Information is organized.

Number of participants was appropriate for the research. Not all participants were involved in each of the sections. This may be due to the varying levels of athletic participation by each athlete. Some in championship season and others (public university, private school) having different times of availability.

Simple background questions may be considered to create a more in-depth visual of the  plight of the student athlete.
Additional comments: The research presented does contribute to career construction theories.

Comprehensive issue. Writers show knowledge of statistics and are able to translate into meaningful language.

The purpose of the research is justified.

Introduction paragraphs three and four present validations for the research and its use of the SAMSAQ.

Data charts are correctly labeled.

Suggested Edits
Line 52 foci- focus
Line 102 di^erent -different
Line 473 till- until
Line 498 di*erent- different
Line 532 till- until
Line 742 modelling-modeling

Reference section: has several article names that are unusually spaced out. Refer to: Lines 737, 740, 755, 766, 770, 782, 785 and 764.

Recommendations from research/Validity of Findings:

1. Sports counseling or dual career programs should focus on first year student-athletes
2. Provide more opportunities for women involved with sports
3. Samples were robust, statistically sound and, & controlled.
4. Create more media attention for public universities and women sports


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: CASPREDICT: A WEB SERVICE FOR IDENTIFYING CAS PROTEINS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: CASPredict is an interesting work, as mentioned by the authors, there are relatively few computational methods designed for identifying Cas proteins.  This work can be a valuable addition to the research community.   In general, the manuscript is well written and easy to follow.  However, I see more work and efforts are needed before being accepted for publication.
Experimental design: The research question is well defined.  Indeed, we do need such tool for better and accurate prediction of Cas proteins.
Validity of the findings: See the comments in General comments for the author
Additional comments: (1) The result page returned from CASPredict is too simple to be practically useful.  Query Sequences, Length, Probability and Yes/No are the only columns returned from the prediction.  The author needs to study Macsyfinder (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0110726) carefully, which provides more detailed information about the Cas protein categories, components, query similarity to core or ancillary components and so on.  Accordingly, introduction part needs to provide literature review information about Cas protein categorizations and components.  Also, the categorization and component information of the 293 manually reviewed Cas proteins in Uniprot will be interesting to see.
(2) In terms of the accuracy (e.g., 89.68%) of the SVM model, there appears to be more room for improvement. One improvement that authors can do is to use another machine learning approach to do feature selection. For example, random forest is used for feature selection in CRISPR-DT (https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article-abstract/35/16/2783/5273481?redirectedFrom=fulltext) MSIpred (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35682-z).  Comparison of the current feature selection method with Random Forest method in terms of the model accuracy will be interesting.
(3) In the section of Materials and Methods,
“After excluding the sequences containing ambiguous residues (“X”, “B” or  “Z”) or sequence similarity more than 30%, we obtained 155 Cas protein sequences as positive 91 samples”.   “Select the non-Cas proteins that sequence similarity less than 40% compared to positive 96 samples”.  The 30% vs 40% lack clear justification and citation. Why not other percentage instead.
(4)  Authors also need to think about allowing users to upload single bacterial or archaeal genome sequences in FASTA file so that predicted Cas proteins can be provided.  If this function can be implemented, it will dramatically enhance the usability of CASPredict.


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: CASPREDICT: A WEB SERVICE FOR IDENTIFYING CAS PROTEINS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript reports a machine learning tool to predict Cas proteins for CRSPR-cas systems. The tool was tested on a training set and an independent set containing both positive and negative cases. The author presented the classification performance.
Experimental design: Questions related to the experimental design:

The method has the following two steps to handle training data:

(iv) select the non-Cas proteins that sequence similarity less than 40% compared to positive samples; (v) keep the number of negative samples and positive samples the same. After the above steps, we finally collected 155 Cas proteins and 155 non-Cas proteins.

Labelled data samples are precious for any learning algorithms, The author did not explain why discard those negative samples, and why select only 155 non-Cas proteins, and why keep the strict balance of the positive and negative class. Similar concerns for the selection of test samples.

The feature selection process also contains a flaw. In 10-fold cross validation, separate feature selection should be applied for each fold of training data. That means the features determined by each fold of training data may be quite different. However, the author just did one-off feature selection for the whole training data set.
Validity of the findings: It’s best to conduct a leave-one-cross-validation process to evaluate the performance.

As the comparison results on the independent test show no difference between the performance of CASPredict and HMMCAS, it is suggested for the author to test the two tools on a new set of proteins.
Additional comments: The manuscript is well organized, but the technical concerns should be technically addressed.


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: CASPREDICT: A WEB SERVICE FOR IDENTIFYING CAS PROTEINS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have addressed some of my comments and suggestions in their revision.  Literature references are much better now.
Experimental design: The authors also improve their training procedures (e.g., feature selection and cross-validation strategies) in terms of the comments from both reviewers.
Validity of the findings: They have used new independent testing data to show the performance and accuracy of their tool, which is not so impressive.
Additional comments: The authors have addressed some of my concerns and comments, but they avoid the critical one.  Although they modified the manuscript to describe Cas protein categories and components, but their claim “If we understood correctly, the categories, components, and other information mentioned in this article is for the CRISPR-Cas systems but not for the Cas proteins” is totally wrong.  CRIPSR-Cas system is composed of two parts: Cas proteins systems and adjacent CRISRP repeats.  Essentially, the Macsyfinder paper was to focus on the categories and component information of Cas proteins system, as well as identification of their homologous in a given genome.  They adopted Hidden Markov model in training protein sequences profiles and give prediction of the existence possibility of some sort of Cas protein system in a given genome.  Now, let compare CASPrdict: it adopts different Machine learning technology - support vector machine and use the optimal dipeptides in training and only answer the question whether a given query protein sequence is a Cas protein or not (possibility).
The authors argued that “The main purpose of developing CASPredict is to facilitate the discovery of potential Cas proteins from unknown protein sequences …”.  From biological perspective, any potential CRISPR Cas proteins must have shared core, essential functions while having mutations and other meaningful variations.  Unless the authors have the major revisions of their tool, I do not see much impact and usage in the research field.  Can authors add new model in tool to answer the questions “Is the given query protein a core protein of Cas system (possibility)”? Can authors compare their result with Macsyfinder result in terms of accuracy, sensitivity or other measures?
Also in the revision, “The core Cas proteins provide a strong barrier for prokaryotic species to resist foreign nucleic acid molecules” is problematic in its interpretation.


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: CASPREDICT: A WEB SERVICE FOR IDENTIFYING CAS PROTEINS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The author conducted a revision for the manuscript using the comments and suggestions from the reviewers. Some of my comments have been taken, but the other comments have not been considered so far.
Experimental design: The design for the leave-one-out-cross-validation is not clear. It's suggested for the author to find a new data set for a performance comparison between the proposed method and HMMCAS (method mentioned in the introduction). It seems that the author misunderstood this point.
Validity of the findings: The performance comparison with HMMCAS is necessary as it's an existing Cas protein prediction method with similar prediction performance as the author's approach. The current response to the comments is not satisfactory.
Additional comments: please explain why leave-one-out-cross-validation performance is lower than 10-fold cross validation results. Usually the former is better as more training data is used for prediction.

more comparison with HMMCAS would make the manuscript stronger.


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: CASPREDICT: A WEB SERVICE FOR IDENTIFYING CAS PROTEINS
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have put good efforts to address my comments and concerns. This version of manuscript is much better than the last version.
Experimental design: Experimental design is good and repeatable.
Validity of the findings: Validation of the result is acceptable
Additional comments: Here are the suggestions or comments for minor revisions:

# 1:  Need to define clearly what is the whole dataset, in contrast with training data and testing data.
# 2:  In line 112, "select the non-Cas proteins that sequence similarity less
113 than 40%" has grammatical errors.
# 3:  In line 149, need to cite the source program for "grid.py"
# 4.  In line 210, "the predicted positive samples are ahead of the negative samples", this is unclear in its meaning.

# 5.  For method part, these are the 193 dipeptide features that were calculated with the highest F score?  What was the cutoff for this?  Should this be mentioned under feature selection?

# 6. “The final classification model was based on the whole dataset which could make use of the dataset. The F-score of each feature was calculated based on the whole dataset, and a grid search strategy was also applied on the whole dataset to seek for the best feature number, the error factor c and kernel function variance gamma.”

Not entirely sure what this means.  Does it mean that you recalculated the F-score of the dipeptide features on the whole dataset instead of just the training dataset?  If so, what did you do with that information? → Was anything changed because of this?  If you changed the dipeptide selection, then why did you not just run it with the whole dataset earlier?  I think this is fine though because you essentially are running an nested cv loop to find the best parameters.

# 7.  I read the discussion where it addressed creating a dataset.  Would it not be better to “balance” (at least try to but I can see where manually reviewed is a difficult part as it’s not guaranteed to be a non-cas protein) a whole entire dataset then split it respectively between training and testing sets?  If you created the independent dataset the same way as you created your training set, then the training set would have a bias for being positive, hence it also being flawed?  Please clarify.


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: MORPHOLOGICAL VARIATION OF THE RELICTUAL ALVEOLAR STRUCTURES IN THE MANDIBLES OF BALEEN WHALES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This is a short, sweet manuscript that nicely lays out the study, the historical context of the issue (although a bit more might be said on that front), and sufficiently describes its findings and their importance. Raw data are supplied and easy to examine.
Experimental design: The actual scientific study is simple and is for the most part adequately explained here, although some terms should be clarified better and simple methods might be outlined in more detail. However, I have no qualms about the methods--they seem to have been entirely appropriate and are mostly detailed well here.
Validity of the findings: The findings are clearly described in the text and shown in a figure, and their impact is discussed, although I suggest below a couple of other factors for the authors to consider.
Additional comments: Review of Peredo and Pyenson PeerJ 61530, “Morphological variation of the relictual alveolar structures in the mandibles of baleen whales”

The issue of the transformation of Mysticeti from early toothed mysticetes to entirely edentulous filter feeders, with only small, temporary tooth buds, is an important topic that has seen a resurgence of interest in recent years. This study addresses an important point: do the grooves, sulci, foramina, and other depressions on the mandibles of extant mysticetes relate to the presence of incipient tooth buds, and the former presence of erupted teeth, and if so how? Or is there no connection whatsoever? This is a topic that is of broad interest and one that deserves continued attention.

This manuscript takes steps toward addressing these questions, but it could go a bit further. One of my concerns is that the terminology itself might be clarified more with a bit more of a literature review. This manuscript suggests (line 50) that the terms “alveolar groove” and “alveolar gutter” are synonymous, but that isn’t certain. Who has used, or introduced, these terms?

More importantly, it is not clear exactly what the relictual alveolar foramen is, and I recommend the authors precisely define and describe what constitutes this foramen and what its relation is to the alveolar gutter. Based on Figure 1B it seems these are entirely separate and distinct features of the mandible, but based on Figure 2 and the text, these two features often overlap partially or entirely. Is it just “the expanded anteriormost foramen” (line 59)? If so, this seems to be somewhat murky and subjective. Is there an objective way to identify where the relictual alveolar foramen ends?

This leads to a related point regarding methods. This is at heart a simple study, which can be a very good thing, but it would be good to read a bit more about how measurements were taken, particularly for measures like the curvilinear length. Just by using tape measures on bones themselves, or by analyzing scaled photos with a computer program, etc.?

Overall, I appreciate the crisp brevity of this manuscript (concision is always to be applauded), and I don’t advocate making it much longer, but I do think there are a few factors the authors should consider (and potentially address), including both paleontological and embryological studies.

I welcome the conclusion that there are different patterns in the proportional length of the relictual alveolar foramen in different mysticete taxa, with the proportional length being considerably longer in balaenids than in balaenopterids. This raises the obvious question of whether anything is known about teeth in the ancestors of these families. Do we know of toothed ancestors either directly in these two families, or in earlier mysticetes allied with these two lineages? It would be nice to know how, if at all, the jaw patterns reported here align with previously reported findings on dental diversity—which would inform the analysis here, make it more useful, and put it into perspective for readers. That of course is presuming there is enough known to say anything on that point…

In addition to paleontological data, what (and how much) is known of developmental data about tooth bud counts in different mysticete taxa? If differences exist and are known, do they correlate with differing relictual foramen lengths, or with other variables (such as the number of baleen plates, for example)? I don’t know much about dental anlagen, but I do know various people have looked a fair bit at them, and I believe there is data both for bowhead/right whales as well as rorquals.

Why does Balaenoptera borealis fall “notably” outside the dataset relative to other whales (and other rorquals)? Even if the authors don’t know, they might speculate about this curious finding. Is there anything notably different about sei whales and their development, morphology, or feeding ecology?

I like the paragraph in the Discussion about the mandibular ramus vs. body.

The two figures are nicely constructed and easy to follow. They are of suitably good quality.

Raw data has been supplied and can also be followed easily. The analysis and findings seem valid.

The text is good, with clear writing. I have a few very minor suggestions, but these are really trifling.

Line 12: some would clarify that not all baleen feeding truly involves sieving; perhaps safer to say simply that baleen plates are always used to filter food from water
Line 13: “Today’s mysticetes” makes sense but seems oddly informal. Perhaps extant (even though that word is used in the next sentence) or living or modern?
Line 21: There seems to be a word missing. Broad variability across what?
Line 51: Recent authors have (not has)
Line 55: the sentence here is OK but I had to do a double take with the final “though leaving it uncertain” clause, which refers back to the other authors (not the alveolar structures). I’d rewrite this, but it can probably stand.
Line 78: why not clarify eleven total species (not just taxa)


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: MORPHOLOGICAL VARIATION OF THE RELICTUAL ALVEOLAR STRUCTURES IN THE MANDIBLES OF BALEEN WHALES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Need to cite a recent paper Ekdale and Demere, 2021 that describes lower jaw anatomy of an extinct toothed mysticete, important for comparison with authors’ findings of similar structures on jaws of extant mysticetes.
Experimental design: The ms addresses an important research question that thus far has received little attention- description of the basic anatomy of the lower jaw of mysticetes with implications for the presence of teeth and their potential function in feeding. Strengths of the paper include detailed description of variability and quantification of morphology of lower jaw among representative mysticete taxa from all extant clades (families).  An important variable ontogenetic age was considered with sampled mandibles from fetal,  subadult and adult (the majority) specimens. Although the question of the homology of mandibular dorsal foramina to dental alveoli will need to be examined in histological study this descriptive paper lays the necessary anatomical foundation for that further work.
Validity of the findings: A few weaknesses were noted that should be addressed.  Taxonomic sampling good with one exception.  For one extant family sampled Neobalaenidae (with only 1 taxon) only a single specimen was examined which limits the reported results of variability in this family. I understand that there is only one specimen of this taxon in the US but others exists outside of the US thus presenting an opportunity for international collaboration and more meaningful results. The authors favor the conclusion (really a speculation without further study) that the alveolar gutter and relictual alveolar foramina (RAF) are homologous with resorbing dentition that have been co-opted to innervate the chin sensory organ or innervate labial eminences--both need more explanation vs the authors’ mention of appropriate references with no further discussion. If they think their results support this then they need more evidence. Importantly, balaenids (and neobalaenids?) lack this sensory chin organ but possess the foramina. Their data at this point consists entirely of a suggestion with limited evidence for one taxon of “constrained developmental pathways early in ontogeny.”
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: MORPHOLOGICAL VARIATION OF THE RELICTUAL ALVEOLAR STRUCTURES IN THE MANDIBLES OF BALEEN WHALES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The ms has been successfully revised based on reviewers comment and is now ready for publication.
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: FUSION NEURAL NETWORKS FOR PLANT CLASSIFICATION: LEARNING TO COMBINE RGB, HYPERSPECTRAL, AND LIDAR DATA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: The experimental design lacks a lot of data preprocessing, resulting in a low classification accuracy of 0.51.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This study aims to combine RGB, hyperspectral, and lidar data for plant classification. They developed a two-stage deep learning approach to integrate NEON remote sensing data from all three sensors and classify individual plant species and genera. The first stage was a convolutional neural network that generates taxon probabilities from RGB images, and the second stage was a fusion neural network that "learns" how to combine these probabilities with hyperspectral and lidar data. This thought is promising. However, they only obtained an overall classification accuracy of 0.51. The authors even pointed out in the discussion that their accuracy is about the lowest in 101 studies reported in a recent review. Such low accuracy cannot make readers willing to use the approach proposed in this study. It seems that the authors didn’t find the best input for the neural network. Besides, they didn’t remove the image artifacts. Therefore, I cannot recommend publishing the manuscript in its current form.


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: FUSION NEURAL NETWORKS FOR PLANT CLASSIFICATION: LEARNING TO COMBINE RGB, HYPERSPECTRAL, AND LIDAR DATA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This article introduced a two-stage approach for tree species classification which combined high-res imagery hyperspectral and lidar point cloud: first using a pre-trained convolutional neural network to generate probability images from high-res imagery, and then applied a fusion neural network with hyperspectral and lidar data. Though the study is complete and is somewhat innovative on combining different sources, the out-of-sample accuracy reported in the article is too low (0.32), and hence the proposed approach is not considered to be potentially applicable. Even after excluding the hardest class ‘other’,  categorical f1-score were zero still for many species. I encouraged the authors to resubmit your article after reaching an improved out-of-sample accuracy (at least 0.5 for out-of-sample overall accuracy).

As mentioned in the discussion part, there are several potential improvements for increasing the accuracy. The first idea bumping to my brain, as you also mentioned, is to increase the certainty threshold, considering your model didn’t perform well for the ‘other’ class. Besides, I suggested taking better use of hyperspectral images. An input of comprehensive hyperspectral bands is not acute enough for capturing subtle spectral differences among species. Feature selection is warranted before fusion neural network model.

The remote sensing community has been struggling with the categories which are not defined in the classification scheme (i.e., ‘other’) for decades. To me, this problem might be already out of technical scope. You may need to re-define the classification scheme to narrow the concept of ‘other’ categories, considering the category for ~20% in your out-of-sample set is ‘unknown’. If the competition organization allows, I would recommend you to re-select your training sample set which can be more representative of your complete classification scheme.


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: FUSION NEURAL NETWORKS FOR PLANT CLASSIFICATION: LEARNING TO COMBINE RGB, HYPERSPECTRAL, AND LIDAR DATA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper was quite clearly written.

Intro and background showed context etc…

Good structure, raw data is shared (I think)

Figures were relevant, high quality  and well captioned

I think they tell where to find data and code.
Experimental design: Original, and definitely within scope of journal.

The research question is very clear, as it is a competition.

It is rigorous, and they describe where assumptions are made and potential shortfalls in rigour exist.

Methods are described in detailed easily understood language, better than most papers I have read honestly.
Validity of the findings: Impact and novelty not accessed ( i love this criteria, it is annoying when authors talk about why their work is great).  They do a good job assessing where the model could be improved.

Underlying data comes from he IDTrees competition, so yeah, I guess its sound.

Speculation is mostly about shortcoming in the model and is clearly identified as such.

Conclusions are well stated etc..
Additional comments: Overall, very interesting and well written paper.  I recommend for publication with minor revisions.

Sentence beginning on line 162:  The laser penetrates the canopy …
On my first read I found this wording to be a bit hard to follow, though now as i look at it maybe its not so bad.

Sentence beginning on  line 180: If the Maximum…
This sentence could be more clear.  I think that they are saying that the bins above the tree are filled with zeros, which is what I would expect, but the phrasing caused me confusion.

Sentence beginning on line 212: The decision to use…
This sentence struck me as kind of funny, it seems kind of like, we just picked a number while gazing at an image. It's probably fine, but that is how it came across to me.


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: TRANSCRIPTIONAL LANDSCAPE IN RAT INTESTINES UNDER HYPOBARIC HYPOXIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: There is some room for improvement in the English of the manuscript. I just listed a few places that need to be changed from the first page as below:

Abstract, line 20, “is a result of the destruction….”.
Line 23-24: “response to the hypobaric hypoxic…”
Introduction, “An area that locates 3000 meters above sea level is defined as…”

I would suggest the authors find an native English speaker to proofread the manuscript.
Experimental design: The authors mentioned in the Materials and Methods section that 2 rats were sacrificed during the experiment. One in group S and one in W4S. Can the authors explain what were the conditions caused the sacrifice? If they were related to the experimental settings, would it make sense to include their gene expression information into the analysis?
Validity of the findings: Have the authors confirmed some of the changes in gene expressions using RT-PCR or other techniques?
Additional comments: Can the authors provide a table listing the genes with the most changes (such as the top 20 genes with increased expression and top 20 with decreased expression), together with the folds of changes?


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: TRANSCRIPTIONAL LANDSCAPE IN RAT INTESTINES UNDER HYPOBARIC HYPOXIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no commen
Experimental design: no commen
Validity of the findings: The authors need to verify the RNAseq results and provide experimental data, such as qRT-PCR and Western blots.
Additional comments: This study by Tian et al. reports the changes of the transcriptome in rat small intestine tissues under acute and chronic hypobaric hypoxic environment using RNA sequencing. The merit of this work is in the generation of transcriptional data and landscape of hypobaric hypoxia response in intestine tissues, which will be a useful database for future studies. However, there are numerous issues in this MS:
1. The hypobaric hypoxia environment is constructed as the simulated 5500-meter-high atmospheric environment using the hypobaric hypoxia cabin. The authors need to provide evidence to show the treatment can indeed extensively induce hypoxia response in treated rats, such as hypoxic markers on mRNA and protein levels.
2. In this study, how do the authors define acute and chronic hypobaric hypoxia (2- and 4-week treatment)?
3. Three groups of intestine samples, S, W2S, and W4S, were analyzed in this study. What is the transcriptional profile of each group, what are the common and unique DEGs of acute and chronic hypobaric hypoxic response compared to the control group, and what’s the difference between acute and chronic treatment?
4. The qRT-PCR and/or western blot need to be performed to verify the results of RNAseq in this study.
5. In the discussion, the authors need to focus on physiological and pathological characteristics of hypobaric hypoxia in intestines, analyze the correlation between transcriptome changes and hypoxic response discovered in this study.
6. There are spelling and grammar errors in this MS. The authors should seek the help of a native speaker who knows scientific writing to improve the writing and presentation.
7. For the figure legends, the authors need to provide detailed information of the figures, such as Figure 5 and Figure 6; Line 227, the position of citation is incorrect.


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: TRANSCRIPTIONAL LANDSCAPE IN RAT INTESTINES UNDER HYPOBARIC HYPOXIA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors addressed my previous concerns in the revision.
Experimental design: The authors addressed my previous concerns in the revision.
Validity of the findings: The authors addressed my previous concerns in the revision.
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: TRANSCRIPTIONAL LANDSCAPE IN RAT INTESTINES UNDER HYPOBARIC HYPOXIA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: The authors convinced me of the novelty, value, and validity of this study. There was no comment from my side.


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: EARLY EFFECTS OF CROP TREE MANAGEMENT ON UNDERGROWTH PLANT DIVERSITY AND SOIL PHYSICOCHEMICAL PROPERTIES IN A PINUS MASSONIANA PLANTATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscripts describes the current status of Pinus massoniana plantations and to provide future direction to achieve sustainable forest management. Author studied a 36-year-old P. massoniana plantation in Huaying city of Sichuan Province. They investigated the changes in undergrowth plant diversity and soil physicochemical properties under three different crop tree densities (100, 150, and 200 N/ha) and concluded that crop tree management significantly increased the undergrowth plant diversity and that the shrub layer diversity was more delicate than the herb layer diversity to the treatments. Further, the contents of available phosphorus, organic matter and hydrolysable nitrogen in the topsoil increased significantly after crop tree management, while the content of available potassium decreased. This study revealed that treatments, 200 N/ha had the best effect on improving the undergrowth environment of the P. massoniana plantation in the initial stage of crop tree management as compared with the other different treatments as used in this study.
I would like to express appreciation to the authors for this study, which aims providing the suggestion for the improvement of Forest cop trees and ultimately to maintain the ecosystem and livelihood. I found the manuscript very interesting to read, but also came across few issues that will deserve some careful attention.
Experimental design: 1.	The article need to be revised fully, precisely focusing on the results presentation, discussion and conclusion.
2.	Abstract should be revised carefully and adopt the scientific style …..
3.	In title, add the authority with botanical name and as well in first place in MS.
4.	Line 16-17…This statement is ambiguous….please revise it…………
5.	Line 51….Please add here reference to support your statement……….
6.	Line 55….revise these sentences….
7.	Similarly…..as mentioned above few lines….there are many sentences which need to be revised….
8.	The article should be revised logically to improve the results and discussion section particularly, conclusion is not good, should be revised.
9.	This study revealed that treatments, 200 N/ha had the best effect on improving the undergrowth environment of the P. massoniana plantation in the initial stage of crop tree management as compared with the other different treatments as used in this study. This statement also indicate that the more amount of treatment is beneficial for crop growth, so would be suggested if author has used other different treatment should include, so clearly can draw the conclusion regarding treatment amount.
10.	Overall, I recommend the article should be published after major revision of the papers results and English improvement.
Validity of the findings: 1.	The article need to be revised fully, precisely focusing on the results presentation, discussion and conclusion.
2.	Abstract should be revised carefully and adopt the scientific style …..
3.	In title, add the authority with botanical name and as well in first place in MS.
4.	Line 16-17…This statement is ambiguous….please revise it…………
5.	Line 51….Please add here reference to support your statement……….
6.	Line 55….revise these sentences….
7.	Similarly…..as mentioned above few lines….there are many sentences which need to be revised….
8.	The article should be revised logically to improve the results and discussion section particularly, conclusion is not good, should be revised.
9.	This study revealed that treatments, 200 N/ha had the best effect on improving the undergrowth environment of the P. massoniana plantation in the initial stage of crop tree management as compared with the other different treatments as used in this study. This statement also indicate that the more amount of treatment is beneficial for crop growth, so would be suggested if author has used other different treatment should include, so clearly can draw the conclusion regarding treatment amount.
10.	Overall, I recommend the article should be published after major revision of the papers results and English improvement.
Additional comments: I would like to express appreciation to the authors for this study, which aims providing the suggestion for the improvement of Forest cop trees and ultimately to maintain the ecosystem and livelihood. I found the manuscript very interesting to read, but also came across few issues that will deserve some careful attention.


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: EARLY EFFECTS OF CROP TREE MANAGEMENT ON UNDERGROWTH PLANT DIVERSITY AND SOIL PHYSICOCHEMICAL PROPERTIES IN A PINUS MASSONIANA PLANTATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript "Early effects of crop tree management on undergrowth plant diversity and soil physicochemical properties in a Pinus massoniana plantation" is fairly well written and worth publishing in PeerJ but it needs revisions before it is published. The comments and suggestions are annotated in the manuscript. Authors are advised to get a native English speaker to correct English before re-submit.
Experimental design: Generally experimental design is fine.
Validity of the findings: The findings are valid and interesting.
Additional comments: This manuscript "Early effects of crop tree management on undergrowth plant diversity and soil physicochemical properties in a Pinus massoniana plantation" is fairly well written and worth publishing in PeerJ but it needs revisions before it is published. The comments and suggestions are annotated in the manuscript. Authors should get a native English speaker to correct English before re-submit.


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: EARLY EFFECTS OF CROP TREE MANAGEMENT ON UNDERGROWTH PLANT DIVERSITY AND SOIL PHYSICOCHEMICAL PROPERTIES IN A PINUS MASSONIANA PLANTATION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors completed extensive revision as per my comments and those of the other reviewer. I'm satisfied with the revision and encourage publication.
Experimental design: Its Ok.
Validity of the findings: The authors completed extensive revision as per my comments and those of the other reviewer. I'm satisfied with the revision and encourage publication.
Additional comments: The authors completed extensive revision as per my comments and those of the other reviewer. I'm satisfied with the revision and encourage 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: SEQUENCE ANALYSIS AND MRNA EXPRESSION OF PROLACTIN RECEPTOR GENE ISOFORMS IN DIFFERENT TISSUES OF SHEEP DURING LACTATION AND THE POST-WEANING PERIOD
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This is a well-written and properly focused article according to the scope of the Journal.
It includes sufficient introduction material and appropriate supporting references.
The article shows the structure of a scientific manuscript, and it includes descriptive and informative tables and figures.
However, references appear to be incorrectly spelled. Please follow guidelines described in the "Reference Format" section of the Journal.
Experimental design: The design of this research seems to be original; however, neither the hypothesis nor the research question are clearly described in the article.
The experimental units (i.e., ewes) are well described, only that it is not clear why the food consumption was measured.
Laboratory and bioinformatics procedures are well described.
The statistical analyses section seems to be insufficient to support and validate the results obtained. Specifically, the statistical model is missing. According to the data analyzed, the statistical model should include at least three main effects: PRLR isoform, physiological state and sampled tissue.
In addition, it is important to clarify which was the statistical test used to compare mean values for mRNA expression among the different tissues (i.e., Duncan test, Turkey test, etc.).
The statistical support of the experiment should be clearer and more complete so that the study can be replicated.
Validity of the findings: Discussion section is well focused and provided the explanation of the results reported; also this section has been strengthened due to the inclusion of several good supporting references.
However, the missing part is the discussion according to the effect of the physiological state of the ewes (i.e., lactation and post-weaning) on the mRNA expression. Such results were reported but not discussed.
Additional comments: - Abstract section does not include information or results from the phylogenetic tree obtained.
- Lines 39-42  According to Table 2, it seems to be that S-PRLR similarity between Ovis aries and Mus musculus is very low, so it does not agree with the statement described in these lines of the article.
- Lines 127-128  What about Mus muscles sequence for S-PRLR?
- Lines 138-139  This information corresponds to the Materials and Methods section.
- When a statistical comparison is not significant, the P-value is generally not needed (i.e., P>0.05).
- Results described by Figure 4 are also included in Table 3. I suggest to clarify which effects are studied in Table 3 and which in Figure 4.


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: SEQUENCE ANALYSIS AND MRNA EXPRESSION OF PROLACTIN RECEPTOR GENE ISOFORMS IN DIFFERENT TISSUES OF SHEEP DURING LACTATION AND THE POST-WEANING PERIOD
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. Based on paper title, there was no summary of cDNA sequence of both isoforms of gene.
2.  In table 2 they mentioned CDS similarity with other species,but the alignment files, accession number of sequenced cDNA not mentioned in text.
3. References of the paper is not uniform. The all references should be arranged in Journal pattern.
 4. Kindly concise article discussion  with our related studies, need not be given other important role played by gene. It should be elaborated in introduction section. That why you planned your study.
5. Kindly improve the article language and concise the discussed text.
6. According to my view it should be published as Short note  after following revision.
Experimental design: Experimental design of the present study is good.
Validity of the findings: Validity of the  present study is as generally reported by earlier worker. It is general type study.
Additional comments: Kindly rewrite the article according to journal short not pattern. The discussion should be restricted to their study only. The References given in text is also minimized.


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: SEQUENCE ANALYSIS AND MRNA EXPRESSION OF PROLACTIN RECEPTOR GENE ISOFORMS IN DIFFERENT TISSUES OF SHEEP DURING LACTATION AND THE POST-WEANING PERIOD
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Thank you to the authors for their kind response to all comments. I consider that the manuscript has improved significantly.
However, I still have two comments:
1) I suggest that Conclusions section could be improved if the authors include some information about main differences in RNA expression between isoforms, between physiological periods, as well as among tissues.
2) I suggest that References section should be revised carefully. It appears to be that "name of authors" and "journal name" need to be corrected according to the "guide for authors".
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: Thank you to the authors for their kind response to all comments. I consider that the manuscript has improved significantly.
However, I still have two comments:
1) I suggest that Conclusions section could be improved if the authors include some information about main differences in RNA expression between isoforms, between physiological periods, as well as among tissues.
2) I suggest that References section should be revised carefully. It appears to be that "name of authors" and "journal name" need to be corrected according to the "guide for authors".


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: SEQUENCE ANALYSIS AND MRNA EXPRESSION OF PROLACTIN RECEPTOR GENE ISOFORMS IN DIFFERENT TISSUES OF SHEEP DURING LACTATION AND THE POST-WEANING PERIOD
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors performed experiments in sheep to mRNA expression of prolactin receptor gene isoforms in different tissue of sheep during lactation and post-weaning (Fig 3/Table 3).

The authors also did the bioinformatic analysis using the published sequences of the prolactin receptor gene isoforms to predict the nucleotide similarity of the gene (Table Table 2), and secondary protein structure of the isoforms (Figure 1).

The only contribution of the manuscript is the mRNA expression of the prolactin receptors isoforms in different tissue

A) The language of the article needs improvement. There are sentences with inexact expressions. Below are a few examples:-

1) Abstract section Line 52.... The word"probably" shows the uncertainty of the results and needs to be stated exactly.
2.) Introduction section Line 72..." would of various in different tissues of sheep"
3) Result section Line 151, 161, 170 and many other places...." 5 times"
4) Result section Line 158...  "Lymph tissue" instead of the lymph node.

B) There is incoherence in the structure of the abstract, introduction, and discussion part of the article
1) Abstract: The large portion of the abstract is dedicated to research methodology and does not provide background information of the research, a statement on the research problem, the rationale/ goal of the research, and significant and/or implication of the research finding.
 2) Introduction: The introduction is deficient in the background information on the research problem,  does not elaborate on the role of PRLR in reproduction/ immunity, and does not elaborate on the rationale of the research. Some of the discussion portions can be used in the introduction.
3) The discussion is divided into sections and each section seems like a review of the literature. The purpose of the discussion is to interpret and describe the significance of the results in light of what is already known and to explain any new understanding or insights that emerged as a result of the study. Its sectioning needs to be avoided and need to be concise.
4) The conclusion section is ambiguous and does not conform to standards. It should summarise the main findings of the study and should state the significance of the results.

C) Table and figures:
1) Table 1 can be omitted. The sequence of the primers can be written in text rather than put into a separate table
2) Figure 2 is not a result and should be omitted.
3) Figure 3 and Table 3 present the same data. There is no need to put data both in figure and table form. Table 3 should be omitted.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: The conclusion is not clearly stated. It gives a general statement. It should be specific. It should summarise the main findings of the study. It should state the significance of the results.
Additional comments: No comment


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

Input:
Title: POPULATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF WILD ASIAN ELEPHANTS (ELEPHAS MAXIMUS) IN PHU KHIEO WILDLIFE SANCTUARY, THAILAND
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment. I included all matters in my report.
Experimental design: No comment. I included all matters in my report.
Validity of the findings: No comment. I included all matters in my report.
Additional comments: Reviewer report
Population and distribution of wild Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in Phu Khieo Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand
General comments
I commend the authors in establishing such a rich dataset on elephant locations in a single protected area in Thailand, in just over a 4-year period. I read the manuscript with interest, as I have never been to Thailand, not have I ever seen wild Asian elephants, in their natural environment. So, my review of the manuscript must be taken by the authors as me forming part of an international audience interested in the conservation and protection of wild Asian elephants, in Thailand. I, however, have four broad concerns, which needs to be dealt with first by the authors, in order for them to translate this rich dataset to published information.
First, the Introduction needs to be re-written to answer four basic questions: What is the problem? Why is it important? What have I/we done to address the problem? What do we expect from our study – what is the most salient and significant outcome (as a take-home message for the reader of the paper? Some of these questions has been addressed by the authors i.e., the issues of habitat loss, and landscape transformation (which then were partly addressed in the manuscript), but addressing poaching, and then admit this not being a problem (and not forming a focus point in the paper) therefore needs to be removed from the introduction. The third question – what have I/we done to address the problem need the most attention, because towards the end of the Results section, the manuscript started to fall apart, and I lost track of the flow of the paper (see the third general comment).
Second, English is not my first (or even close to my home) language, and I suspect the same for the authors of this manuscript. I would therefore strongly suggest, as I often having to do, that the authors make use of a professional and/or colleague proficient in English to assist with the grammatical and editorial issues (we as reviewers and Editors can’t do it for the authors), to improve the manuscripts’ readability by removing value-laden jargon currently scattered across the manuscript.
Third, and along with the second point, the authors may want to consider re-structuring the paper. Reading through the Results section of the paper, especially towards the end, I lost the flow of the result presented there, as the description of the results jumped from one set of results to the next, introducing new variables being tested with no mention where these ‘new’ set of variables came from (saltlick, station, stream, village, and road, Dry Dipterocarp forests, although later for the land cover description in the building the MaxEnt models), and leaving out other environmental variables listed earlier in the manuscript (i.e., savanna), and then only to mention (in line 174) threat factors as an explanatory variable(s). Nowhere in the manuscript could I find these threat factors.
I strongly suspect Figure 2 is missing some of the cartograms (and as the information here links with results presented in Table 5) made the whole manuscript fall to pieces towards the end. This is crucial information on the distribution of elephants in the protected area, and needs attention before further effort can be spent on the review-process.
I am, of course, willing to give it another round of review, once these issues has been resolved, as a proper re-written, edited, carefully design manuscript, with the attention to detail it deserves.
Fourth, I don’t see the point in including the sex-specific age-structures of the seven elephant herds in this paper, as the paper is mainly concerned with the distribution of elephants, and the habitat variables associated with such a distribution. Only including the very basic demographic (overtly detailed) structure detracts from the main message of the paper, and serves no purpose.

Minor specific comments
Abstract
From 38,834 photos, 149 locations, 6,896 trap nights yielded the exact same number of 6,896 photos with elephants – is this correct? Remarkable if it is the case.
MaxEnt gives habitat preference, within 49 of the 149 trap locations (in the main text it listed 7, sometimes 5 environmental factors, sometimes other not listed anywhere – see general comments)
Line 45: Commonly referred (insert to) as an umbrella…..
Line 46: remove the word clearings, and change forest to forests
Line 47: reference change (IUCN 2020), surely the IUCN is not the authority to list here
Lines 49 to 54: need References implicating habitat loss, conversion of forests to agriculture, loss of migratory routes, and poaching (both commercial and subsistence)
Line 55: Are these the latest figures available for wild Asian elephants in Asia (see also line 67)?
Lines 58 to 71: is best illustrated with an informative map showing the position of Thailand with its neighbouring countries, the position of the listed protected areas, illustrating the sizes of the protected areas (and complexes), and the distances between them, and then specifically for the study site in question. Figure 1, in its current format does not provide for this, and updating Figure 1, will help in having to remove the unnecessary text in the Introduction. Figure 1 itself is very unclear, the heading and legends not informative for international readers, and the map show that most of the elephant locations (although I am unsure what the elephant symbols means) are situated in the moderate suitable (yellow) area? Or is this an effect of the camera trap locations, and how where these locations selected?
Line 64: it is back to the poaching issue – which apparently is not a threat in Thailand (needs Reference), or removed, as this does not form part of the study (unless, it is one the threat factors, which hasn’t been described anywhere)
Lines 65-66: degradation and fragmentation the biggest threat (needs Reference) – leading to an increase conflict (needs Reference)
Line 66: change ‘A rough estimate …’ to ‘An estimate …’
Line 67: The number of elephants in Thailand 17 years ago not relevant to this study? Are these the latest estimated figure for elephants across Asia, and Thailand?
Line 68: how do we know that the estimate is imprecise? Is that an opinion, or actually published, which then needs a Reference
Lines 68 to 71: again best illustrated in a map (as suggested before)
Lines 68 to 70: these lines are repeated in the study area description, and need to be removed from the introduction
Line 69: what is a ‘best wildlife spot’? For tourism? Or for the protection of biodiversity/Asian elephant? If it is the latter – then the authors need to consider a proper Reference.
Lines 72 to 83: this paragraph reads like an opinion piece, Describing camera techniques being trusted? With ease of use? And identification of species/individuals being unobtrusive, shoulder heights for age, used elsewhere should really form part of the Methods, not the Introduction
Line 88: Remove the sentence on stating the ‘best wildlife spots’
Line 89: the names should be spelled consistently, either Latitude and Longitude, or latitude and longitude
Lines 91 to 93: The study site map (Figure 1) should also illustrate all the detail (i.e., names, locations, areas, (8) connections, etc.,) as described here
Lines 94 to 97: elevation, slope, land cover, and vegetation types are the most salient features (individually, or combined) for elephants which is again, is best illustrated visually with a separate map to the one in Figure 1. Then, on this map the 149 camera trap locations can be indicated. For instance, only reporting on the average and highest elevations, hides information on the (%) low-lying areas, and the associated habitat features for these elephants (as the Results also imply between 200m to 300m elevation band widths). Some 95% of the study area consists of two types of forests, and more details on these are needed. If these forests do not differ substantially, but do dominate the landscape, should then not be considered as an explanatory variable for habitat suitability. If they do differ substantially, then forest type becomes relevant (along with the other landscape features selected). Are the elephant locations the same as trapping station locations?
Lines 97-100: the statement can be removed as I suspect that this is not relevant to the study (but can be included as part of the newly designed study site figure – see comment above)
Lines 102 to 104: Change the entire sentence in its current format to: We used HCO SG565 flash camera-traps (HCO Outdoor Products, Norcross, Georgia, USA) to obtain photographs of individual elephants.
Line 106: remove … about 15 m or even to …
Line 106: remove entirely – we can never say we have captured an entire herd in one photograph, as individuals may have walked by outside the photographic area. I assume these were digital images made of elephants – how frequently were these downloaded from each trapping station?
Lines 107 to 109: move these sentences before where you describe attaching the cameras to trees (and then, also, indicate on the study site map, the locations of the 3 x 3 km2 grids. In addition, how many cameras were used per grid, and how far apart are these cameras placed, and then how many of these 3 x 3 km2 grids as they move to a new location every 3 months?
The results of the set of correlation structure of environmental factors (are reported in Table 1) are new and as of yet, not described (or even better, illustrated). For instance, if the authors could illustrate and describe salt licks (sometimes mentioned natural slat licks, other time only slat licks, what are these and how are they distributed across the study site), station (I presume camera-trap station), show the streams (water being such an important factor for any elephant) and of course with elevation, village (proximity or are these even inside the protected area, size, number of people if there are more than one village in question), illustrate the road network, elevation (already covered), and slop (slope? also mentioned earlier). This is a rather important step in the analyses routine, and your international readers (like me not being familiar with Thailand, or its elephants, and protected areas) will require much more and better illustrated information.
(Table 1) heading and legend reads the same
Lines 111 to 113: Instead of just referring to the work of others, rather provide the full description of the variables included here (see the point above), and then for your own understanding, in just a few words what the purpose of this exercise was. It will then become clear why more information is needed here
Lines 113 to 115: the calculation of relative frequency to estimate elephant distribution has me confused – so, does no photographs illustrate no elephant presence, and relatively high, or low frequency indicate elephant presence? Does relative frequency, the number of times an elephant (herd) walked by a camera, give an indication of elephant distribution? What if it is the same herd (false high frequency), or different herds walking past single and multiple times (false high frequencies), same herds but in different composition over the three years? In principle, therefore, we need to know the degree of observer bias in separating (identifying/distinguishing) among the animals – as you did report in the abstract the exact number of elephants, and their sex-specific and life stage specific numbers (and ratios). We would like to review this (as a suggestion, it can be written up and included as Supplemental Material)
Lines 116 to 121: The relative abundance index, also is depended on the details requested for the relative distribution calculations. You mentioned O’Brien et al. (2003) as a reference of independence of animal detections of the same species were longer than 30 minutes apart but, surely, it should be of the same individual here, as camera-happy (as opposed to camera-shy individuals) will inflate estimates – and may eventually give an incorrect population estimate (and the related population characteristics that you listed in your abstract). If all elephants were treated the same, we cannot expect to see absolute values – and only relative indices
Line 127: change claves to calves
Line 123 to 133: In addition of this description, an illustration of a ‘typical’ (with photographs, and illustrations of the morphological distinguishable and body dimensions) in identifying individual elephants (maybe suggested as part of Supplemental Materials). How did you decide when it was an elephant bull, or elephant cow, or when it was a sub-adult bull? What is the difference (maybe in relative size on photos) the difference between a juvenile and a calf, and a juvenile and a sub-adult (bull or cow)?
Lines 135 to 136: How frequently should these elephants be seen together to make up one herd? And what is the typical composition of a Wild Asian elephant herd, compared to what you have found at your study?
Lines 138 to 139: delete the entire first sentence
Lines 142 to 157: move to earlier in the methods section
In general – the methods and the analyses procedures were described together, which confused me, as I had to waste time to search for the analyses and methods description relevant for each of the result sections.
Line 168: Am I understanding this correctly, calculating a home range based on 49 data points. Is this correct?
Lines 172 to 176: For the Statistical Analysis, this is where the question (what have we done in the Introduction becomes relevant) for I cannot figure out what exactly do the authors want from their work? What is population structure mentioned in line 173? And for the first time the threat factors are included in statistical analyses – what are these threat factors, how were they measured for elephants, and scaled for inclusion in the ANOVA?
Line 182: Given the outcomes of the autocorrelation test – how was the models corrected after excluding some factors, and which ones remained, or were they just all kept irrespective of whether there was a strong or weak negative and positive correlation?
Line 193: How was crude density calculated?
Table 3: I would suggest, rather to give the absolute values, to illustrate the population structure and sex ratios, because we have to calculate backwards the composition]. For the reproductive ratio the values are fine. Present the total at the bottom of the table, i.e., first herd 1-7, then total values for the whole population. Also, describe the Duncan test in the analyses description. Change N/A = not analysis to N/A = not analysed
Lines 199 to 207: Unnecessary information, duplicating everything in Table 3, can be deleted
Table 2 comes into play. And this is where restructuring the paper may help the reader.
Lines 209 to 211: appears to be misplaced
Lines 212 to 215: the result description, and the incomplete cartograms in figure 2 does not tell me much, apart from a relatively high degree of overlap, and therefore, the total value results in Table 5 does not make sense to me. I cannot figure out where the total values (I think it is in km2) comes from – which is one of the main results reported in the abstract, and therefore must be important. Are all the values of each herd used independently, and then added?
Table 4: change slop to slope: What are models 5 to 14? And the average – the ‘lack-box calculations here needs much information to be evaluated.
Table 5: Note:-=Not predicted should maybe read Note: N/A not analysed?
First mention of MCP. And then for KDE, are the total just added up, but what about the overlap among the elephant herds? I guess, with Figure 2 incomplete, and Table 5 linked to Figure 2, must first be addressed before carrying on.
In table 5: we need more information on what is ‘most suitable’, ‘moderate suitable’, ‘lowest suitable’ for wild Asian elephants.
In Figure 2: each diagram needs a number, I expected 8 cartograms, and only see 7
In Figure 2: some of the KDE 95% green lines shave different thickness – what does the size differences mean?
In Figure 2: Please check if Kernal should not be Kernel
In Figure 2: I can’t find the MCP lines?
In Figure 2: A space should follow after F.
In Figure 2: The figure title stops abruptly – and then appears to be repeated as the description below it – this problem appears in some of the other Table and Figure descriptions – and should be addressed with more attention to detail.
Line 236 to 243: now I completely lost track
Discussion (I did not read the discussion)


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: POPULATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF WILD ASIAN ELEPHANTS (ELEPHAS MAXIMUS) IN PHU KHIEO WILDLIFE SANCTUARY, THAILAND
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The text is understandable, but the English is sometimes difficult to follow.

The context is clear, the issue also, the literature is relevant. It is very focused on South-East Asian elephant though.

The structure conforms with PeerJ, that said figures are not very neat, though acceptable and readable.

Raw data is supplied, and appendix table open easily.

Recommendation: A native English proof-reading may improve the fluidity of the manuscript. A better lay-out of figures would be needed to conform to PeerJ standards but does not preclude understanding.
Experimental design: The study is in the scope of PeerJ, the interest is moderate in terms of knowledge gaps, but it has value for conservation of the species. Some details are missing on the area considered as a sample unit around the camera traps, and this should be addressed to allow for a strict replication of the study.

The use of MaxEnt modelling is rudimentary, and some conclusions therefore shallow (see next point). My advice here would be to rerun the analyses, and use a model selection approach to select a parsimonious model.
Validity of the findings: The analyses are run correctly but the model is very weak, hence the conclusions are overstated. Further, the conclusions may have overlooked a simple ouput of the MaxEnt model: elevation is the only variable that performs better than the model with all variables, suggesting that a simple model with elevation may be enough. This relates to possible covariation with elevation of other key variables.

As stated in point 2, I would rerun the model and use consider model selection, and certainly focus on a limited set of variables. The jack-knife procedure is used for this partially, and strongly suggest that elevation alone is enough.
Additional comments: Although the paper presents interesting data on a small population of Asian elephant, and certainly contributes to a better understanding of its status in the area, there are several issues regarding the description of the method and the use of the MaxEnt modelling that prevent the conclusions to be very powerful, and also question the relevance of some of the variables considered, as discussed in points 2 and 3. See detailed comments  enumerated below, hoping it will help addressing the issues.

L69-70  I think the structure of the sentence calls for correction. I suggest add [is]  as follow : Phu Khieo Wildlife Sanctuary, one of the best wildlife spots in Thailand, [is] located in Chaiyaphum province in Western Isaan Complex in the northern part of Thailand.

L144-146 “...with a set of environmental factors that likely model a species’ environmental requirements were used from set of occurrence localities, influence the suitability of the environment for the species...”. What is the distance around the camera trap that was used as a spatial sampling unit? Was this unit matching the pixel size used for slope or elevation? This needs to be clarified.
L148: ‘Furthermore,..’ this word is not necessary, as the authors presnt ways to extract variables enumerated previously.
L154-155: Is this sentence meaning that only 49 camera sites captured elephants and the other 100 did not, hence being considered as pseudo-absence (or real absence) ? ‘A model was built by using 49 wild Asian elephants’ 155 coordinates (6,896 photographs) from the total 149 camera trap stations (38,834 photographs).

L172-174: The sentences describe very rudimentary analyses, only using one-way anova and correlations. The data seem to allow a bit more elaborated statistics.
L175: “Differences between population structure and environmental factors were considered significant at p < 0.05.” I believe should read “Effects of environmental factors on population structure were considered significant at p < 0.05.”

Results

L201-205: The following information is redundant with Table 3.  “…population structure among AM:AF:SM:SF:JU:CA of herd No. 1 was 1:3.0:0.0:0.3:0.3:0.0; herd No.2 was 1:3.3:0.5:0.2:0.2:0.00, herd No. 3 was 1:1.7:0.3:0.2:0.2:0.2; herd No. 4 was 1:2.5:0.4:0.2:0.6:0.0; herd No. 5 was 1:1.5:0.0:0.2: 0.0:0.2; herd No. 6 was 1:1.3:1.0:0.3:0.0:0.5 and herd No. 7 was 1:1.0:0.0:0.0:1.0:1.0. The sex ratio between AM:AF was highest in herd No. 2 (1:3.3) and lowest in 205 herd No. 7 (1:1.0).”

L218-219: I think the authors are over emphasizing the significance of their models, as the 0.5 value is included in the interval around the average:  “...15 generated training or testing models (for all records modelled) had a high level of performance compared with a random model where the average AUC was 0.61±0.13.” Further, Fig 3B shows that the random line is mostly included in the confidence interval of the sensitivity.

Table 1: I wonder why slope is not at all correlated with elevation, it is often the case, except on high altitude plateau. The correlation can be weak but rarely have I seen it not correlated at all. That echoes another point raised by the examination of the first suppl. file, in which lots of values for elevation are 0 (actually 172 ‘0’ for only 18 non-zero values). I think it might not have any relevance then, which is actually suggested by the MaxEnt analysis.

Table 5 and results on this section: I’m not sure the comparison are relevant as information are not really of the same type. The result do give an idea of how much range seems favorable to elephant, and the difference between herds. Vulnerabilities of herds with home ranges using less favorable habitat may be more interesting to show.


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: POPULATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF WILD ASIAN ELEPHANTS (ELEPHAS MAXIMUS) IN PHU KHIEO WILDLIFE SANCTUARY, THAILAND
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Basic reporting (Mainly editorial)
Abstract
Conclusions
Line 40: change ‘, the habitat is able to provide a suitable habitat area for elephants, …’ to ‘, this Sanctuary is able to provide suitable habitat for elephants, …’
Line 42: change ‘area’ to ‘region’
Line 42: change ‘reduce the conflicts between’ to ‘reduce conflict between’ and remove ‘along with the broader areas.
Introduction
Line 54: change ‘threaten their populations as well’ to ‘threaten some populations'
Line 55-57: the sentence here reads confusing: it reads as if the elephants increased from 41,410 to 52,345 in a single year, and then to decline in numbers by 2020. Consider rewriting the sentence to make the statement clear for the reader

The tables and figures have many spelling mistakes. I.e., Table 1 where Slop should be Slope
Table 2: would it be possible to get clarity on when the authors talk about a grid, a camera trap station, etc?
In general, the figures are a great improvement from the first round of review.
Figure 2: (D) Human activity and streams map, I assume the black line(s) are people presence, activity, or villages. Further clarity is needed here, as sometimes people (presence) are referred to as activity (legend of figure 2), or villages in map 2(D) and Table 1, in the result section village and elevation, are seemingly combined into one of seven environmental factors, the presence of people (or their activities not even included in Table 4; and then referred to as village location in figure 6). And yet it is highlighted as one of the main issues in the Introduction (lines 50-55) where it refers to potential human-elephant conflict. All of the people aspects needs better clarification, or if not an issue, removed.
Experimental design: Experimental design (again, mainly editorial)
Materials and methods
Study area
Line 81-82: slopes range from 10% to 80% - what do these percentages mean?
Camera trap Survey
Lines 87-91: please consider splitting these very long (and repetitive sections) into two, possibly even three shorter sentences.
Lines 105-117: The whole paragraph here is out of place, and not even needed as it has nothing to do with the study design.
Lines 118-127: This entire paragraph confuses me: in a 3 x 3 km2 grid, and two cameras per grid (camera station I presume) gives 18 cameras per grid, not 15 as stated. The sentence on ‘The spatial sampling unit…..’ is misplaced, and according to the authors the batteries have been downloaded (probably meaning the batteries have been replaced) and the SD cards downloaded.
Population survey
Line 139: the scale needs to be quantified; i.e., 0 means bad quality photos and discarded, and 5-10 as sufficient from which to identify individual (herd) characteristics
Lines 150-153: This section can be incorporated into the next (Distribution Model) section.
Lines 155-156: remove the entire sentence
Lines 154-172: this is the crux part of the methods section in the paper, but it reads so confusing, and with irrelevant information that has nothing to do with the survey design, that I cannot figure out if the study was done correctly.
Statistical analysis
The authors keep on mentioning ‘species’ but surely you mean ‘individuals’, as this work is on a single species, but numerous individuals?
Line 186: what does PKWS mean?
Lines 194-197: does this section relate to the previous description in lines 188-193? If so, then this needs to be clarified and rewritten
Validity of the findings
It is unclear if both the positively and negatively correlating factors were included to estimate the distribution model(s)? The description of the correlating factors is very confusing.
Distribution Model
Line 236: ….that all 15 generated … 15 what? Models? It is not clear
Lines 243: what does more useful mean?
Line 253-254: the last sentence reads like a conclusion, and not as a result per se
Lines 255-258: here the authors write about a trend, of the MaxEnt habitat model and the MCP and KDE? What trend do you refer to here? As the home range results are only indicated in the next section
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: General comments
The Introduction still lacks a clear problem statement, apart from stating some generalities that are applicable in any part of the world with elephants, and people nearby. In general, having read through the manuscript it would appear that the authors have not considered a professional editorial (grammar) input, as was previously suggested. Past, present and future tenses are all over the show! The whole manuscript is written in a passive voice and detracts from the readability of the paper. Some of the sentences are seven lines long, and by the end of each sentence I forgot what the beginning was – it also causes confusion by repeating statement(s) in a single sentence. This needs immediate attention. Having read through the methods and analyses section, I am still not sure what the questions are that the study wants to answer, and the flow of information disjointed and difficult to follow.

Conclusion
The conclusion section only reflects, and repeat the main findings (which also, was never made clear in the result section) with limited deductive reasoning of what this study contributes to our broader understanding of wild Asian elephants, their management, and conservation. Statements like in lines 367-370 are dangerous, in that here the authors reflect on controlling the reproductive ratio of the population. Not enough information is provided by the authors to make such a suggestion.


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: BIOACTIVE MARINE METABOLITES DERIVED FROM THE PERSIAN GULF COMPARED TO THE RED SEA: SIMILAR ENVIRONMENTS AND WIDE GAP IN DRUG DISCOVERY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: The article in this paper is a review, so it has no findings.
Additional comments: The article is well written however, some doubts have arisen on the subject addressed in the paper:
1- The author states, in the introduction, that marine metabolites are unique and that the maritime environment interferes with the characteristics of these metabolites. He also reported that the marine environment of the gulfs is more stressful than the Red Sea. How was it possible to compare metabolites with so many differences?
2 - What should be in the structure to be considered a compound with potential for treatments?
3- What are the characteristics of the metabolites found in the gulfs that make them equally or more important than the metabolites found in the Red Sea?


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: BIOACTIVE MARINE METABOLITES DERIVED FROM THE PERSIAN GULF COMPARED TO THE RED SEA: SIMILAR ENVIRONMENTS AND WIDE GAP IN DRUG DISCOVERY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The manuscript entitled "Bioactive marine metabolites derived from The Persian Gulf compared to The Red Sea: Lessons in drug discovery" is an attempt to deliver a comparative discussion of the bioactive marine metabolites present in different environments (the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea). However, authors have spent a long part of the text comparing unnecessary technical information, instead of focusing on its main goal. Furthermore, when the main point of the manuscript was reached (Isolated microorganism and Bioactive chemical structures) the text was brief and shallow, not presenting an appropriate discussion and comparison, completely leaving the focus proposed in the title of the work, that would be a lesson in drug discovery. Thus, in my opinion, the manuscript does not deserve to be accepted for publication in PeerJ.


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: BIOACTIVE MARINE METABOLITES DERIVED FROM THE PERSIAN GULF COMPARED TO THE RED SEA: SIMILAR ENVIRONMENTS AND WIDE GAP IN DRUG DISCOVERY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: About table 1:

First of all, it is call a table, however very confusing. Tables should have entries, so I suggest the authors to structure better the table.

Structures Ochratoxins A (7) and Fumonisins (8-13) could change places, so I suggest Ochratoxins A (7) in the left and Fumonisins (8-13) in the right.

In the Aspergillus versicolor, its written Anthraquinones (28-31), however   there are drawn componds 28, 29 and 30, there is no 31. At the same entry, the next cell shows compounds  30 and 31, however compounds 30 from Anthraquinones (28-31) are not the same.

I suggest to redraw compounds to 39 e 40.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: The authors states  interesting questions about fungi species, making a comparition of Red Sea and Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. Using some general aspects of each class of Aspergilium (well supported by literature), authors try to stimulated curiosity and open the eyes of researcher to  new possibilities.
Additional comments: In general, the review can encourage other scientists and research centers. To make the reader more comfortable, I suggest that the authors prepare a comparative table on general aspects of the Red Sea and Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. As well as for the species of Aspergilium observed in each of the seas.

I recommend this manuscrips for publication after revision.


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

Input:
Title: BIOACTIVE MARINE METABOLITES DERIVED FROM THE PERSIAN GULF COMPARED TO THE RED SEA: SIMILAR ENVIRONMENTS AND WIDE GAP IN DRUG DISCOVERY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: The article deals with a review comparing marine bioactive metabolites in the Persian Gulf with the Red Sea, produced by fungi of the Aspergillus species.
Experimental design: The methodology is consistent, and the sources are adequately cited in the paper.

It is suggested a revision in the name of the mentioned metabolites, sometimes with a capital letter and sometimes with a small letter.
Validity of the findings: Although it is a short review (mine review), the results are interesting, and the work well structured.
Additional comments: This revision work needs minor corrections, such as those mentioned above. A revision in the name of the metabolites and a complementation of the literature.


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: BIOACTIVE MARINE METABOLITES DERIVED FROM THE PERSIAN GULF COMPARED TO THE RED SEA: SIMILAR ENVIRONMENTS AND WIDE GAP IN DRUG DISCOVERY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: In general, the authors have answered all questions and performed all modifications that were previously made to the manuscript by all reviewers.

So, in my opinion, once all points have been covered, I recommend this article for publication on PeerJ


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

Input:
Title: A GENOMIC PERSPECTIVE ON THE POTENTIAL OF TERMITE-ASSOCIATED CELLULOSIMICROBIUM CELLULANS MP1 AS PRODUCER OF PLANT BIOMASS-ACTING ENZYMES AND EXOPOLYSACCHARIDES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The content is clear and supported with relevant references
Experimental design: Well design to justify scope of manuscript
Validity of the findings: The work proposed lacks novelty as similar other strains exist in the scientific domain. A comparative table with outstanding strains can highlight novelty to some extent. So, authors are advised to include a table of comparison.
Additional comments: Please address a few other comments:

1. Authors are advised to explain Paragraph 3 under the results section, clearly and precisely.

2. Figure 4 B could be redesigned (Components not having a significant amount of genes could be excluded).

3. In Figure 6, a decline in enzyme activity after 120 h could be shown.


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

Input:
Title: A GENOMIC PERSPECTIVE ON THE POTENTIAL OF TERMITE-ASSOCIATED CELLULOSIMICROBIUM CELLULANS MP1 AS PRODUCER OF PLANT BIOMASS-ACTING ENZYMES AND EXOPOLYSACCHARIDES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In this paper, Cellulosimicrobium cellulans MP1 was screened from termite intestine, and genome sequencing and CAZY enzymes analysis were performed; its levan production capacity was also evaluated.The paper is relatively well written and the references are suitable.
There are two main strengths of the thesis.
1. the studied strains were screened from termite gut.
2. the production of levan by Cellulosimicrobium cellulans was reported.
The main disadvantages are：
1. there is not much novelty in the research topic and methodology; especially in the CAZY enzyme analysis part.
2. lack of in-depth study for some interesting research points, for example: sacC1-levB-sacC2-ls operon.

Some specific suggestion:
1. line240-242, the authors found that MP1 has very high homology with DSM 43879 and A153. The current status of research on these highly homologous strains needs to be described. Also, why were these highly homologous strains not used in the subsequent comparative studies?
2. In the chapter "Mining of plant biomass-acting enzymes in C. cellulans MP1 gene pool", please expand the description of PL enzymes and add information about AA enzymes. The authors tested the viability of endoglucanase and Xylanase, did they try the enzyme viability of PL or AA? This experiment may be considered to be added.
3. In Line362-365, the authors suggest that "levan produced by C. cellulans MP1 may be hydrolyzed into L-FOs such as levanbiose and levanases ". In the follow-up experiment, the product assay can be performed to confirm this.
Experimental design: The research question studied and the experimental methods used in this paper are conventional, so there is no problem in the experimental design and methods.This of course makes the novelty of the paper not very strong.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: no comment


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

Input:
Title: A GENOMIC PERSPECTIVE ON THE POTENTIAL OF TERMITE-ASSOCIATED CELLULOSIMICROBIUM CELLULANS MP1 AS PRODUCER OF PLANT BIOMASS-ACTING ENZYMES AND EXOPOLYSACCHARIDES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The originality of this paper appears on reporting for the first time, the identification and detailed genomic analysis of cellulose-degrading and levan-producing among Cellulosimicrobium genus. This paper is added to the few studies combining DNA based approaches to culture-dependent approaches cellulose degradation enzymes in well known and interesting species involved in cellulose biomass degradation.The work’s strengths appear in paper well written, Is the text clear and easy to read. The validity of questions, the use of a detailed methodology and the data analysis being done systematically.
Experimental design: Methodology well described, only some statistical analysis were missing to support your findings.
Validity of the findings: First work to describe and report for the first time, the identification and detailed genomic analysis of cellulose-degrading and levan-producing among Cellulosimicrobium genus.
The Presence of high Cazymes numbers of GH, GT, AA family suggesting the interesting aspect of strain MP1 in breaking down cellulosic biomass.
The Combination of Molecular and cultural approaches to support the findings suggestion the strain MP1 as a good biomass degrading enzymes and Levan producer.
Additional comments: Good introduction that placed the subject in its theorical framework and illustrating the problematic of research.
	The goal of research is clearly reported, regarding isolation of strain MP1 and highlight its role in cellulose degradation and Levan production through a genomic full genome sequencing/analysis.
	Some suggested modifications:
o	Line 91: please add a brief definition of what is levan?

	Methodology well described.
	Line 117: could you explain why you make surface sterilization with ethanol?

	Results/discussion sections: Nice findings are here, especially revealed by DNA/metagenome approaches. The combination of both cultural, biochemical and molecular approaches to give more insight on the interesting cellulase of strain MP1for both cellulose degradation and Levan production.
I have some remarks to report below:
	Line 224: remove “isolated from termite gut”, we clear know it from title, introduction and by material/methods.
	Line 230: in table S1, how do you explain the decrease of enzymatic activities after 72H?
	Line 235: how it can be rods and cocci at the same time?
	Based on 16S, genomic analysis, GC%, echophysiology analysis, could you confirm/or not that strain MP1 may represent a new species among Cellulosimicrobium genus?
	In line 246 you reported GC content is 57.5% and in line 258 you said that GC% is 73.9%. which one is correct?
	Figure 3: please remove the text red underline of Cellulosimicrobium cellulans. It would be more talking if you add a color legend of each color in this this figure instead having it figure legend captions.
	I suggest citing Fig. 4 in line 264 instead of line 267.
	Line 296, Could you please add more information in you Figure S1 (similarities %, bootstrapping nodes…)
	Line 388:  Cellulosimicrobium consist of 7 species (6 validly published, and one non-validly published):
a.	Cellulosimicrobium variabile Bakalidou et al. 2002
b.	Cellulosimicrobium terreum Yoon et al. 2007
c.	Cellulosimicrobium marinum Hamada et al. 2016
d.	Cellulosimicrobium funkei Brown et al. 2006
e.	Cellulosimicrobium cellulans (Metcalfe and Brown 1957) Schumann et al. 2001
f.	Cellulosimicrobium aquatile Sultanpuram et al. 2016
g.	and "Cellulosimicrobium arenosum" Oh et al. 2018

-	Missing of statistical analysis.


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

Input:
Title: A GENOMIC PERSPECTIVE ON THE POTENTIAL OF TERMITE-ASSOCIATED CELLULOSIMICROBIUM CELLULANS MP1 AS PRODUCER OF PLANT BIOMASS-ACTING ENZYMES AND EXOPOLYSACCHARIDES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Some of the suggested additional experiments were not done, but the authors have basically completed their response to my comments and I think the manuscript is ready to be accepted. The expectation is that they will carry out the experiments I suggested in the future.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Some of the suggested additional experiments were not done, but the authors have basically completed their response to my comments and I think the manuscript is ready to be accepted. The expectation is that they will carry out the experiments I suggested in the future.


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

Input:
Title: A GENOMIC PERSPECTIVE ON THE POTENTIAL OF TERMITE-ASSOCIATED CELLULOSIMICROBIUM CELLULANS MP1 AS PRODUCER OF PLANT BIOMASS-ACTING ENZYMES AND EXOPOLYSACCHARIDES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The originality of this paper appears on reporting for the first time, the identification and detailed genomic analysis of cellulose-degrading and levan-producing among Cellulosimicrobium genus. This paper is added to the few studies combining DNA based approaches to culture-dependent approaches cellulose degradation enzymes in well known and interesting species involved in cellulose biomass degradation.

The work’s strengths appear in paper well written, Is the text clear and easy to read. The validity of questions, the use of a detailed methodology and the data analysis being done systematically.
Experimental design: Methodology well described
Validity of the findings: Good findings were reported, especially revealed by DNA/metagenome approaches. The combination of both cultural, biochemical and molecular approaches to give more insight on the interesting cellulase of strain MP1for both cellulose degradation and Levan production.
The study is the first work to describe and report for the first time, the identification and detailed genomic analysis of cellulose-degrading and levan-producing among Cellulosimicrobium genus through combination of Molecular and cultural approaches to support the findings suggestion the strain MP1 as a good biomass degrading enzymes and Levan producer.. The study reported the presence of high Cazymes numbers of GH, GT, AA family suggested the interesting aspect of strain MP1 in breaking down cellulosic biomass.
Additional comments: No additional comments