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 PROPOSED TERMINOLOGY FOR THE DENTITION OF GOMPHODONT CYNODONTS AND DENTAL MORPHOLOGY IN DIADEMODONTIDAE AND TRIRACHODONTIDAE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall Review
As the titles states, this paper has two main goals regarding non-traversodontid gomphodontians: provide a revised terminology for dental anatomy and provide new information about the dental anatomy itself.  Below I raise five major comments as well as provide a number of more minor edits.  Overall, these suggestions amount to fairly significant modifications that will necessitate a second round of reviews.  (Christian Sidor)

Comment 1: The dental morphology of two families of non-traversodontid gomphodontians is the primary topic of the manuscript and the authors should be commended for the amount of information they provide.  However, the authors do not provide evidence that a revised set of terms describing gomphodont dental anatomy is needed, despite terminology being front-and-center in the title.  The introduction provides ample background on the families discussed, but that is very different from providing background on what has been problematic with the anatomical terms previously used, or what confusion exists with the current descriptions of the dental anatomy concerned.  Why is a new set of terms needed?  The introduction should be rewritten to focus on the main thrust of the paper and to explain to the reader why this review/revision is needed.  Wilson (1999) is a good example of a paper introducing terminology with ample documentation of why it was needed.  Personally, I do not feel that a revised terminology is needed, but perhaps I could be convinced if the authors provide context for this component of the paper.

Comment 2: The lack of a formal Systematic Paleontology section is problematic, especially given that this is meant to be a comprehensive review of two families.  Although the authors provide most of what would be contained in such a section within the Results section, several important issues remain:
A)	The authors do not seem to have a grasp of the use of taxonomic authorities.  For example, parentheses-e.g., (Seeley, 1894)-have a very specific connotation within systematic paleontology (e.g., the species was previously assigned to a different genus) and thus they should not be used unless warranted.  In other words, using parentheses in the context of systematic paleontology is not the same as referring to an author in a citation.  The authors should review the relevant ICZN guidelines and confirm or delete parentheses as appropriate throughout.
B)	More importantly, definitions and diagnoses are not provided for most taxa, and without this information it is not clear how the specimens are assigned.  For example, what diagnostic features were used to assign specimens to Cricodon metabolus? Likewise, how will a future researcher assign a new fossil to Diademodontidae without an explicit phylogenetic definition or diagnosis?  By contrast, the amount of detail provided in the Occurrence and Horizon subheadings seems unnecessary for a paper discussing anatomy (not geography or stratigraphy).  The occurrence data is especially not useful since it doesn't link a specimen number to a locality.  A list of apomorphies is provided starting at L1348, but identifying apomorphies can only be accomplished in the context of a phylogenetic analysis.  If the autapomorphies for each species have been recognized in the course of this research, the authors are well on their way to being able to provide a complete systematic paleontology section in the revision.

Comment 3:  This relates to the issues raised in Comment 2, but highlights the effort that should be expected from a significant review-type paper such as this.  Sidor and Hopson (2018) offered the most recent treatment of trirachodontid dental anatomy and systematics.  They provided a phylogenetic definition of the family, diagnoses for each of the four species, and a cladistic analysis placing trirachodontids among a wide range of cynodonts.  Their results show that 'Chinese trirachodontids' are better understood as traversodontids (not trirachodontids).  The current authors, who had access to the Sidor and Hopson (2018) manuscript since late 2016, should to either 1) adopt the Sidor and Hopson (2018) results, 2) explain in more detail why they believe it is wrong (including the data needed in Comment 2), or-best of all-3) provide an analysis showing why their taxonomic organization is preferable.  Either this is a descriptive paper, in which case systematic conclusions are not warranted, or this is a systematic paper, in which case an analysis needs to be presented.

A related issue is the assignment of specimens to species.  This is critical and can't be evaluated without a cladistic analysis and more complete systematic paleontology section.  For example, SAM-PK-K5881 is used to describe the dentition of Cricodon metabolus, but it is unclear why this specimen pertains to C. metabolus in the first place.  It doesn't seem to fit stratigraphically and the morphology doesn't correspond to Sidor and Hopson's (2018) diagnosis.

The anatomical data on diademodontids (with a definition and diagnosis included) is uncontroversial and worth its own paper.  The trirachodontid section needs substantially more work.

Comment 4:  The term "apex" has a long history of use in the dental literature (see Fehrenbach and Popowics, 2016 and other textbooks) and corresponds to the opposite direction from how the authors use it here (see also Hendrickx et al. 2015).  For a paper attempting to clarify and regularize terminology, this is troubling to say the least.  This issue should be addressed in the introduction and a convincing argument made to separate the human dental terms from those used for cynodonts.  Wilson (2006) discusses similar issues and I believe Larry Witmer has a paper talking about applying bird terms to dinosaurs (but I can't find the reference).

Comment 5: The dental terms discussed from Lines 172-359 lack references to previous terms used in the literature.  In fact, there are several seminal works (e.g., Crompton, 1972) that should be noted and comparisons made (either for individual terms or at the beginning of the section).  In addition, the abbreviations provided do not specify uppers or lowers, which previous abbreviations did.  All of this is related to Comment 1, which is a request to explain the history of these terms and what confusion needs to be clarified.

Minor edits
L1 - Reverse order of title so anatomy comes first and terminology second?  Just an idea, but anatomy forms the bulk of the paper and, as I noted above, I'm not particularly sold on the need for a revised terminology.
L16 - Delete "are"
L23 - Replace "taxon" with "species".  Taxon is too vague.
L26 - Replace "dentition morphology" with "dental morphology".  This type of grammatical mistake occurs repeatedly should not occur when there is a native English speaker among the coauthors.
L30 - Replace "A" with "Finally, we propose"
L44 - Replace "the" with "their"
L61 - Replace "carnassial" with "sectorial".  Carnassial has very specific taxonomic and functional connotations that are not appropriate for a cynodont.
L62 - Replace "taxon" with "species".  Taxon is too vague.
L62 - Trirachodontids were recently reviewed in depth by Sidor and Hopson (2018).
L72 - Wynd et al. (2018) provide a recent example of the difficulty in assigning non-cranial material to Triassic cynodonts.
L79 - Replace "most" with "the descriptions of many".  Citing "CH pers ob." is unnecessary.
L82 - Traversodontids should be mentioned, at least briefly, somewhere in the introduction.  It might also be worth noting the controversial placement of tritylodontids among gomphodontians by several authors (e.g., Hopson and Kitching, 2001; others by Sues).
L83 - "Aims to" should be deleted and the rest of the sentence updated to a more active tense (i.e., "i) proposes a standardized…")
L92 - Update to "data matrix"
L96 - Delete "City"
L130 - Add citation to Sidor and Hopson (2018) at the end of the first sentence, as they previously came to the same conclusion.
L133 - See Comment 4 above regarding use of "apex" and "apical" and any other derivatives (e.g., apicobasal).
L139 - Fix parentheses around citations.
L213 - Why is there commentary on the distribution of this feature, but not others?
L221 - This definition seems to be at odds with Brink and Reisz's (2014) distinction between serrations and denticles and should be resolved.
L251 - "Oval, quadrangular…" are not useful descriptors unless the reader knows what view you are talking about.
L256 - Is the proposed function ("specialized for cutting") necessary?
L257 - Why is a traversodontid feature included here?
L305 - Why is this called longitudinal if apicobasal is your preferred term for this axis?
L309 - Replace "their" with "its"
L311 - Change to "Two or more…"
L327 - This is the only non-dental term on the list.  Needed?
L334 - Replace "Blade-like" with "Labiolingually compressed" because the former does not specify a direction to the blade.
L351 - "Intermediated" is not a word.
L357 - This description is unclear.  In this case, transverse seems to refer to transverse to the long axis of the tooth, but this is not specified.
L362 - Remove parentheses.
L362 - Add definition subheading and provide phylogenetic definition.
L363 - Check systematics to see if parentheses are necessary or not.
L379 - Add diagnosis subheading and add cladistic diagnosis.
L385 - Diademodon is likely also from the upper Fremouw Formation of Antarctica.
L394 - Replace "dentition morphology" with "dental morphology".
L397 - Are there no differences between upper and lower incisors?  If not, this should be stated explicitly.
L401 - Delete "s" from minutes.
L409 - The SAM specimen number is incomplete.
L415 - "well-above" is not clear, since the distinction between upper and lower canine was not made.  This should be clarified.
L421 - The BPI specimen number should be BP/1/4669 (I believe).
L428 - Not clear what specimen of Diademodon is being considered in the second half of this sentence.
L429 - Replace "while" with "whereas"
L430 - Clarify why denticles and serrations are both used in this sentence.
L436 - Delete "specimen".  (Holotype is a noun, so either use holotypic specimen or holotype)
L439 - Insert "proportionately" before "wider"
L447 - Not clear what "at base of the cusp" refers to.  Closest to cusp?  Please rewrite for clarity.
L452 - Delete "d" from located.
L485 - The NHMUK specimen number format is incomplete.  Use NHMUK PV R3303 (and numerous places elsewhere in the paper)
L492 - The SAM specimen number is incomplete.
L507 - Would not "denticulated" be preferable to "serrated" here?
L525 - Replace "is" with "are"
L553 - Delete "distally" because it is repetitious.  Recurved denotes distal (otherwise it would be procurved).
L564 - The line about enamel texture is out of place here.  It should go at the beginning of the section.
L571 - Remove parentheses.
L573 - Add diagnosis subheading and cladistic diagnosis.
L585 - Delete "the"
L595 - Add "upper" before "postcanines"
L602 - Not clear if there are one or more transitional postcanines because of lack of agreement between "a" and "postcanines"
L607 - Remove parentheses
L608 - Add definition subheading and provide phylogenetic definition.
L608 - Add diagnosis subheading and add cladistic diagnosis.
L608 - Remove parentheses
L612 - Add diagnosis subheading and add cladistic diagnosis.
L657 - Replace "cross-section" with "cross-sectional" here and elsewhere (e.g., L665) as you are using the term as an adjective.
L671 - The sentence beginning with "It is formed…" is very confusing as written.  I can't tell if you are talking about serial homology or to some other taxon.  Please rewrite for clarity.
L718 - Delete "distally" because it is repetitious.
L736 - Remove parentheses
L740 - Add diagnosis subheading and cladistic diagnosis.
L744 - Replace "Formation" with "Beds".  See Smith et al. (2018).
L750 -Sidor and Hopson (2018) also described additional information about C. metabolus dental structure based on referred material.
L772 - Sidor and Hopson (2018) report denticle counts for NHCC LB28, a juvenile Cricodon metabolus. 6-8 serrtions/ 3mm in lower incisors.
L776 - Rewrite to "much higher density of denticles …"
L792 - Delete "distally" because it is repetitious.
L803 - Sidor and Hopson (2018) report denticle counts for NHCC LB28, a juvenile Cricodon metabolus. 15-19 serrations/ 3mm in mesially and 9/10 serrations/ 3mm in distally.  They consider this disparity to be a diagnostic feature of C. metabolus.
L813 - Change to "cross-sectional"
L814 - Salinon is not a useful descriptive term.  I had no idea what it meant and a quick web search did not help.
L820 - Sidor and Hopson (2018) describe the occurrence of a sectorial first upper postcanine in a juvenile C. metabolus, suggesting that mention of ontogenetic changes in dental shape is warranted.
L835 - The step-like position of sequential postcanine teeth could be a feature of tooth replacement.  See Sidor and Hopson (2018:fig. 3).
L882 - A brief explanation of why K5881a and K5881b are necessary would be useful.  And at L893, the a/b is missing - why?
L905 - The sentence beginning with "If" doesn't make sense.
L959 - Sidor and Hopson (2018) show a lingual cingulum on the distalmost lower postcanine, which contradicts what is written.
L962 - Delete "specimen"
L963 - Rewrite to past tense - "That study revealed that …"
L970 - Check Sidor and Hopson (2018) for parentheses
L971 - Update NHMUK abbreviation to include PV as necessary throughout the paper.
L976 - Sidor and Hopson (2018) show that 12168 is the original specimen number and informed the SAM about this.  Check with Zaituna.
L991 - Cite references for "other authors"
L1003 - Replace "counts" with "features"
L1034 - Salinon?
L1054 - The 'shouldering' described is not really the same as what you see in traversodontids.
L1057 - The sentence beginning with "If" doesn't make sense.
L1116 - Change to "postcanine"
L1169 - "two and three fifth" does not make sense.
L1170 - Delete "distally" because it is repetitious.
L1176 - Not clear how a projection can be "high and short"
L1126 - Delete "the taxon"
L1239 - Replace "finally" with "finely"
L1247 - Address parentheses issue noted in Comment 2.
L1312 - Address parentheses issue noted in Comment 2.
L1344 - Change to "postcanines"
L1346 - Apomorphies can only be recognized with after phylogenetic analysis, so I'm unclear how the authors have determined this.
L1358 - This character description is unclear.
L1360 - Sidor and Hopson (2018) provide a more robust diagnosis for the family.
L1389 - Sidor and Hopson (2018) addressed the affinities of Beishanodon with a complete analysis of craniodental characters (not just dental).
L1411 - Change citation of Sidor and Hopson (2018) to Hopson and Sidor (2015).  The results presented in the 2018 analysis showed the Chinese species as basal traversodontids.
L1421 - Cite Sidor and Hopson (2018), as their analysis showed the Chinese species to be basal traversodontids.
L1429 - See comment 3.
L1444 - Repeating the characters listed by Sidor and Hopson (2018) isn't very useful.  This space would be better used to point out issues of homology among the character states, ontogenetic changes in the dentition, or inaccurate character codings.
L1473 - The observed differences between the two taxa can be explained as the result of there being two morphospecies (viz. Sidor and Hopson, 2018) or one species with ontogenetic variation.  If the authors truly believe the latter, then some ontogenetic analysis needs to be presented.
L1495 - Why is "K171" used twice?
L1505 - Dental complexity includes species variation, ontogenetic variation, and variation along the tooth row.  It might be worth calling out all three at some point.

Literature cited in this review
Brink, K. S., and R. R. Reisz. 2014. Hidden dental diversity in the oldest terrestrial apex predator Dimetrodon. Nature Communications 5:3269 doi: 10.1038/ncoms4269.
Crompton, A. W. 1972. Postcanine occlusion in cynodonts and tritylodontids. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Geology 21(2):30-71.
Fehrenbach, M. J. and  T. Popowics.  2016.  Illustrated dental embryology, histology, and anatomy, 4th ed.  Elsevier.
Hopson, J. A., and J. W. Kitching. 2001. A probainognathian cynodont from South Africa and the phylogeny of nonmammalian cynodonts. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 156(1):3-35.
Sidor, C. A., and J. A. Hopson. 2018. Cricodon metabolus (Cynodontia: Gomphodontia) from the Triassic Ntawere Formation of northeastern Zambia: patterns of tooth replacement and a systematic review of Trirachodontidae. Pp. 39-64. In C. A. Sidor, and S. J. Nesbitt, eds. Vertebrate and Climatic Evolution in the Triassic Rift Basins of Tanzania and Zambia, Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Memoir 17. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 37 (6, supplement).
Wilson, J. A. 1999. A nomenclature for vertebral laminae in sauropods and other saurischian dinosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 19(4):639-653.
Wilson, J. A. 2006. Anatomical nomenclature of fossil vertebrates: standardized terms of 'Lingua Franca'? Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 26:511-518.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: See comments in Basic Reporting.
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 PROPOSED TERMINOLOGY FOR THE DENTITION OF GOMPHODONT CYNODONTS AND DENTAL MORPHOLOGY IN DIADEMODONTIDAE AND TRIRACHODONTIDAE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: There were a few inaccuracies with the English, which are addressed in the attached PDF. The references, article structure, figures, and data are good.
Experimental design: This paper does a very good, thorough job of describing the teeth of gomphodont cyndodonts, and provides many new characters that will be useful for future taxonomic identifications and phylogenetic studies. The identification of a ontogenetic series in Triarchodon is particularly interesting.
Validity of the findings: The data are robust and the conclusions are well stated.

I only have one main concern, which is the lack of differentiation between a serration and a denticle.
As described (Lines 338–346), a serration can be composed of enamel or enamel and dentine. This is very confusing throughout the manuscript when ‘serrations’ are being described, as it is unknown if true denticles (dentine core with an enamel cap) are present or not. It is very important that these differences are noted, since an enamel serration and a denticle are developmentally very different, and a lack of distinction between the two features can hamper future phylogenetic studies and interpretations of the evolution of these characters. It is especially confusing in an example like Figure 2J where serration and denticle are labeled as the same thing.
Based on developmental and genetic data, the development of a denticle, cusp, or cuspule is a very different process than the development of an enamel feature. Also, there are developmental differences between reptiles and mammals (See: Polly, P.D. 2015. Gene networks, occlusal clocks, and functional patches: new understanding of pattern and process in the evolution of the dentition. Odontology 103(2): 117-125. Look at references referring to development of tooth shape (12, 16–20) for more information on how this happens). As gomphodonts are closely related to mammals, it is possible their tooth development is more similar to a mammal than a reptile, but this is still unknown. Therefore, the careful documentation of when a denticle, cusp, or cuspule appears vs. an enamel feature is very important for deciphering the evolution of this dentition in your future phylogenetic analyses (as stated in the last sentence of the conclusions!), especially when considering the homologies of these features and differences between incisors, canines, and postcanines (is it only a denticle if it is on a carina? What is the difference between a serration and a series of cuspules? (lines 343-346) Is a cuspule developmentally similar to a denticle?). Additionally, the presence of true denticle or an enamel serration could impact your interpretations of diet, since a denticle is likely to withstand wear for a longer time than an enamel feature.

Here are some examples that should be clarified, whether by changing the definition of a serration or by using denticle instead of serration. The entire manuscript should be re-examined to ensure that the terms denticle and serration are being used correctly. The term ‘denticulated’ should be used when denticles are present.
Lines 430-431: “The distal denticles are large and apically inclined whereas the mesial serrations are low and show a widely convex external margin.”

I read this as the distal carina has true denticles, while the mesial carina may or may not have true denticles. If the word serration is replaced by denticles, the description would be much more clear.
Lines 628-632: “The largest denticles are at mid-crown whereas the basalmost and apicalmost serrations do not reach the root and the crown apex (Figure 6A, B). The distal denticles of the fourth upper incisor of NMQR 3281 and SAM-PK-K11481 share the same morphology, with the largest denticles at mid-crown and the basalmost and apicalmost serrations extending far above the root (Figure 6C) and below the crown apex,
respectively.”
Using denticles would clarify that there are differences in the occurrence of true denticles along the mesial and distal carinae.
Lines 856-860: “Unlike the central cusp, the denticles of the mesial, distal
and central ridges of the labial and lingual cusps diminish in size apically. Similar to the serrations of incisors and canines, they are apicobasally elongated and change sporadically in
size. Their external margin is, however, flattened or weakly convex (Figure 7O). The serrations on the labiomesial and labiodistal ridges either extend along the whole cusp up to its apex, or are
restricted to the basal half of the cusp.”
Once again, it is unknown if the serrations on the labiomesial and labiodistal ridges are true denticles or not.
Lines 949-951: “The mesial and distal carinae are serrated along the apical portion of the main cusp and the serrations extend across the apex of the cusp (Figure 7P-Q). The denticles are low, apicobasally elongated and show a symmetrically convex external margin.”

Lines 1006-1009: “The distal denticles of the first and
second incisors of SAM-PK-K5821 are incipiently developed and form poorly delimited convexities changing sporadically in size along the carina (Figure 8C). These serrations appear to extend well-above the cervix and get flared at mid-crown.”

Lines 1259-1261: “Minute denticles can be seen at the
base and apex of the distal carina of the fourth left upper incisor (Figure 10B, C). We counted
eight denticles per mm on this tooth. No other incisor appears to bear serrations.” In this example, are the minute serrations true denticles?
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: A PROPOSED TERMINOLOGY FOR THE DENTITION OF GOMPHODONT CYNODONTS AND DENTAL MORPHOLOGY IN DIADEMODONTIDAE AND TRIRACHODONTIDAE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: It is a good contribution to improve the knowledge of gomphodont dentition, including detailed description all non-traversodontid gomphodonts. Overall, the manuscript is well-structured and its scientific content is satisfactory. The amount of additional data is amazing and will be useful for future contributions. The authors stated in the text that this contribution is part of a series of (at least) three papers. Because of this, some parts of the ms seem to be partially addressed what turn difficult, in my view, some inferences, as for example, homologies among postcanine structures. In the attache file I include several comments that should be considered by the authors prior to publication. I think that after a moderate review the MS should be accepted for publication.
Experimental design: The description are well-performed with well-figured specimens. I think that the figures can be improved by adding a picture/drawing of the whole dentition, as for example, the skull in ventral view and lower jaws (or jaw) in dorsal view to see all the dental elements in position (of course, in the taxa that it is possible). I think that this will greatly improve the provided information. Also, those diagrams will be important to observe changes along a dental series and also to interpret possible homologies among dental structures. Regarding dental homologies, it is the most weak issue in the MS.
Validity of the findings: The authors made an excellent job describing the dentition of all non-traversodontid gomphodonts, with detailed description of not only postcanine teeth, but also incisors and canines. It will be a base for future workers on the subjects. However, i think that an standardized terminology is still difficult to propose if  several traversodontids and other basal cynodonts are not considered in the analysis. And not only topology of structures but also tooth replacement, upper/lower tooth occlusion relationships,  detailed changes along the dental series and comparison along the different clades should be used for an standardized terminology among cynodonts, in which teeth are extremely important to taxonomy and phylogeny.
Additional comments: The authors can find my comments and suggestions on the annotated manuscript.


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

Input:
Title: A PROPOSED TERMINOLOGY FOR THE DENTITION OF GOMPHODONT CYNODONTS AND DENTAL MORPHOLOGY IN DIADEMODONTIDAE AND TRIRACHODONTIDAE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Overall Review
I was asked to review the revised manuscript of Hendrickx, Abdala, and Choiniere for PeerJ.  I have read the revised MS (85 pp) and feel that it is a substantial improvement over the initial submission.  Although I disagree with some points raised in the rebuttal letter provided by the authors, it is overall fit for publication once the other papers that are part of this series can be assured of publication (i.e., accepted or in press).

The stratigraphic chart in Figure 1 is a welcome addition.

Rebuttal Comment: “as for the term apex, the first reviewer does not seem to be aware of the correct definition of this term” and “It is troubling, to say the least, that this reviewer is unaware of the actual definition of the term apex, which was clearly defined by Hendrickx et al. (2015) in their proposed terminology on the dentition of theropod dinosaurs, a terminology we followed in this MS.”

Here we are going tit-for-tat about this issue.  I find it laughable that the rationale that the authors provide is a 2015 paper that they wrote.  At minimum, the authors should acknowledge the typical dental textbook use of these terms somewhere early on in the MS.

Comment 2:  I agree with the editor’s suggestion that a simple schematic representation of tooth variation across the taxa represented would be a useful synthesis.

Rebuttal Comment:  “We believe that data on the occurrence and horizon provided for each taxon is very helpful and we do not intend to remove them.”

As with the first previously submitted version of this manuscript, I disagree with authors that the inclusion of occurrence (=locality) data is necessary or even worthwhile.  Horizon data is fine.  If I were the editor for this journal, I would ask –how is the inclusion of this information useful to the readers?  For example, would a researcher ever look for this information in a paper on tooth anatomy?  (No.)  I also don’t think including this info is useful for the ‘greater good’ either, because as I noted in my original review, without associating the locality with exactly which specimen comes from it, not much is gained.  For example, no one could add a new occurrence to the Paleobiology Database from the information given.

Solution: if the authors reorganized this section to include locality data after each referred specimen, then I have no problem including the information.

Minor Comments:
L238 – Not clear why Cyclogomphodon is in parentheses.  If AMNH FR 5519 is the type of Cyclogomphodon platyrhinus, just list it as such and delete the “Diademodon (=” part.

L270 – Regarding the stratigraphic uncertainty noted by Ottone et al., an alternative that should be noted by the authors is that Diademodon might have a longer stratigraphic duration than previously expected (as noted by Peecook et al.. 2018)

A note on geological terms:  There is no “Upper Ntawere Formation.”  In this case, “upper” is used as an adjective, not as part of a proper noun – and so it shouldn’t be capitalized.  Similarly, there is no official “Late Anisian”  (but of course there is a Late Cretaceous), so you need to check these case-by-case in the manuscript.

L1474 – It would be worth noting up front that Sidor and Hopson’s (2018) cladistic analysis found Beishanodon and Sinognathus to be traversodonts, but that the authors reiterated their previous suggestions that they might represent probainognathians instead.  They way the traversodont result is introduced later in the paragraph is a little confusing and seems to contradict what was written earlier.


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

Input:
Title: A PROPOSED TERMINOLOGY FOR THE DENTITION OF GOMPHODONT CYNODONTS AND DENTAL MORPHOLOGY IN DIADEMODONTIDAE AND TRIRACHODONTIDAE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors seem to have addressed all reviewer comments appropriately. A final pass through should be done to catch all English errors and type-os, and then the paper will be ready for publication.


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

Input:
Title: TEMPERAMENT AND CHARACTER PROFILES OF MEDICAL STUDENTS ASSOCIATED WITH TOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY AND PERFECTIONISM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Generally the writing was clear and comprehensible. The introduction I found a little confusing as there were frequent lists of facts or measure or components of various personality frameworks. This meant the bigger picture ideas could be a little lost. At times the lists were note directly linked to the research presented (for example, lines 72 – 76, where the various measures used by researchers to examiner the big 5 personality traits were presented, but weren’t really relevant to the study or the interpretation of the study results). I think the authors could streamline the introduction little to allow greater focus on the main points – which in this example would be that although measuring personality using the big five is more common in education research, there are other frameworks that could be used (TCI) which consider personality traits in two categories (temperament traits and character traits).
Experimental design: I wonder if the hypothesis would benefit from being written in the same direction as the analysis – e.g. the analysis focused on determining if personality profile predicted tolerance of ambiguity and perfectionism (both concern over mistakes and high standards), could the hypothesis then have been expressed as expecting students with a personality profile of low harm avoidance and high persistence, self-directedness and cooperativeness to report high tolerance of ambiguity and adaptive perfectionism. This might have made it all link together a little more for the reader.
More information on recruitment would also have been useful to the reader. Whilst the overall response rate was good (62%), participants were predominantly in first year. Did recruitment tactics vary between year groups?
If I’m correct could the same participant have completed the study twice – in year 2014 and again in 2015? If so this could be a potential limitation of the study and needs to be acknowledged as such in the discussion.
It’s not clear why the age groups were chosen as under 25, or 25 or over – what is the rationale for this? This needs to be added to the methods.
Validity of the findings: There is a potential confounder of age and progression through training. The authors briefly mention in the discussion (line 331) that there were ‘no differences in the age or gender distribution among responders across the four years …’ but don’t really address this fully and don’t present the data on this. As there were considerable differences in the numbers of participants between the year groups I wonder what analysis was carried out to determine no difference in age between year groups? Something to clarify this confounder or lack of confounder would be needed.
Alongside this is a more fundamental question. If character traits are amenable to change through social learning and environment, could they have varied with year of study and could this have impacted upon the results of the study? The authors raise this point in the discussion (line 321) when they notes that a longitudinal design would enable them to ‘..examine how personality and coping interacts over time…’ and (line 324 – 325) ‘Further research will follow students’ through medical school to examine changes in personality profiles…’. I think a greater examination of year of study or an acknowledgement that there may be a year of study confounder is needed.
One other point which puzzled me was in relation to the personality profiles. From Figure 1, it would appear that the profiles vary on the levels of harm avoidance (this is in the profile descriptions), in the levels of persistence (mentioned in the discussion - line 294 – 295, but not results), and in self-directedness, which is not mentioned anywhere. Is this the case? If so, was this analysed by the authors? High self-directedness would seem to be important to the authors views regarding potential route of impact of the profiles. Clarity is needed here.
Additional comments: Whilst this was an interesting paper, I think work is required on making it clearer for the reader, both in terms of the methods used, but also in interpreting the results. The lack of clarity on some aspects of the methods would require another review.


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

Input:
Title: TEMPERAMENT AND CHARACTER PROFILES OF MEDICAL STUDENTS ASSOCIATED WITH TOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY AND PERFECTIONISM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The writing is clear and unambiguous, it is of appopriate length and depth
Good coverage of personality literature.

I think there is a gap in the background. The authors talk about some work about tolerance of ambiguity. The article would really benefit from in-depth review and analysis of the clinical reasoning and clinical decision making - as ambiguity and the clinical reasoning process it at the heart of that. It is unclear to me how or if tolerance of ambiguity might relate to clinical decision making or patient outcomes and so situating it the medical education literature would really help to contextualise it.
Experimental design: Research question is defined clearly.

Design is self-report and cross sectional which was appropriate.
More context needs to be provided about the medical students and their training - e.g. most of the sample were first years - was this intended? how much clinical medicine are they doing at the time?

No information is given about response rate or recruitment methods.

I didn't understand the split in under 25 and 25 or over years of age - students in each group could be a month apart in age and the split seems artificial without further statistical justification of this.
Validity of the findings: Data analysis seems robust.

It would be helpful to add in - how representative was the sample of the cohorts?

Were there differences between the years of study((in the discussion I can see that there are no age or gender differences) - medical students in these years are learning and practicing in very different ways and I think results should be presented according to this (rather than age - as students can start their course at different ages) - or statistical justification of why this isn't necessary is presented.

I don't understand the implications of this work - for example,  a certain level of tolerance of ambiguity as useful for their clinical practice - even whilst they might find this difficult or stressful. I am also not sure what medical schools could or should do as a result of this link - so not sure that it is a robust conclusion that medical educators should help students at varying levels.
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: TEMPERAMENT AND CHARACTER PROFILES OF MEDICAL STUDENTS ASSOCIATED WITH TOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY AND PERFECTIONISM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The introduction was clearly structured and methodical however occasionally became slightly confusing. At times the flow of the introduction was lost when accounts were given in relation to different tools utilised within this area 71-86 If structured more methodically in relation to this it is felt the linkage between the different areas of temperament, tolerance and perfectionism would be clearer and would add to the clarity of the study. Terms introduced such as ‘heritable’ 102 would benefit from further explanation within the introduction since it is referred to further within the paper.

The introduction would benefit from more detail relating to medical student experience as they progress through their studies, since different year groups were involved in this present study. Also expansion on what we know from existing literature relating to empathy/burnout/professional behaviour would help give more context to why it is so important to research this area. It is referred to, line 64, but would benefit from more detail and would improve justification for conducting this study.

Overall clearly laid out, methodical structure leading the reader through the background relating to this topic area. The presentation used within this work is clear and allows for effective interpretation of findings and transferability to medical educators worldwide. This work identified clear relevance both for wellbeing of medical students and ability to engage with the requirements placed on them as they progress through their professional career. Provision of raw data, tables and figures gave this work transparency in a varied and well-presented format.
Experimental design: Good piece of research using a unique approach that adds to the existing knowledge base exploring medical student wellbeing. The aims of the paper were clearly presented and understandable (148-157). It is felt that if the introduction was structured more methodically the link with the aims would be clearer. I commend the researchers on exploring this very relevant topic area with its important implications for medical education and managing to collate data from such a large group of participants.
The methods clearly presented the approach to data collection of validated tools, and acknowledge ethical approval. Some more detail regarding sample would be helpful such as were they just undergraduate medical students or were they direct entry 168.
Appropriate account of approach to analysis of data collected. Clear description of tools implemented to gather data, and provision of additional information in appendices was helpful.
Validity of the findings: Unique, transparent  approach to a very topical area of medical student wellbeing.  Work acknowledges study limitations, 312, 317, 329 and is clear that findings can only suggest conclusions that can be drawn. Identifies important areas of future research within this area; longitudinal/across years. Conclusions well stated and linked to research question providing important information for the area of medical education.
Additional comments: Found this a really engaging piece of work, which contributes to a knowledge base that has important implications for long-term wellbeing and professional implications for medical students.


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: CAPSAZEPINE PROLONGATION OF THE DURATION OF LIDOCAINE BLOCK OF SENSORY TRANSMISSION IN MICE MAY BE MEDIATED BY MODULATION OF HCN CHANNEL CURRENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Although the native English reader is able to understand the context of this study, the language used needs some revision.
Experimental design: This is a reasonably well designed study with standard electrophysiological approaches employed for the HCN channel experiments in transfected cells.  Behavioural studies also follow standard approaches as do the experimental analyses.
Validity of the findings: The key finding, about which all behavioural interpretation is based, is that this study replicates the results of an earlier (2013) study demonstrating that capsazepine blocks HCN channels.    The 2013 study was interesting by did not really show the mechanism and focussed on the two HCN channel isotypes (HCN2 and HCN4) that are modulated strongly by cAMP, thus allowing for multiple potential mechanisms.  Thus it remains unclear what the mechanisms may be.  Since the current study is based on this 2013 study, it is a bit of a reach to suggest in the title and throughout the manuscript that capsazepine is exerting its effects through blockade of HCN channels.
Additional comments: This is an interesting study, with conclusions that are based a little too strongly around a mechanism (how capsazepine modulates HCN channels) that is yet to be definitively resolved.  As addressed in the discussion, there is a great need for prolonging regional anaesthesia.  If a pan HCN blocker is going to be incorporated into regional anaesthesia it will be important to maintain the current best practice of vasoconstriction around the injection sites to prevent the potential impact on the HCN4 channels in the sino atrial node?

Minor comments:
Ln 72:  "...forskolin .... HCN channel enhancer".  Although this is how the drug is used in the current study, this is not correct.  forskolin stimulates adenylyl cyclase, increasing cAMP which modulates some (HCN2 and HCN4) HCN channels.

Lines 181-6:  combinations of lidocaine with ZD and CPZ caused sedation in some animals thus rendering the results from some behavioural tests ambiguous.  The authors have excluded all but the pin prick test- would the sedation not also potentially alter these results?

Pin prick test experiments:  repeatedly puncturing the skin will cause a localised inflammatory reaction and thus alter the threshold for activating nociceptors (and other neurons).

Table 1:  not clear what the comparison is for the ZD + CPS + lido group.


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: CAPSAZEPINE PROLONGATION OF THE DURATION OF LIDOCAINE BLOCK OF SENSORY TRANSMISSION IN MICE MAY BE MEDIATED BY MODULATION OF HCN CHANNEL CURRENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Very poorly written paper.
Literature references are inadequate as several statements have no or inappropriate references

The structure of the article is fine and the data are well presented.
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: In this study, Zhao et al examined whether the TRPV-1 channel antagonist, capsazepine (CPZ) could prolong duration of lidocaine action in mice using different approaches. Consistent with their hypothesis, they found that CPZ prolonged duration of lidocaine, and they concluded that CPZ exerts its action by inhibiting both HCN and TRPV-1 channels.

Overall, the study addressed, using different appropriate approaches, an important issue; the experiments seemed to be well conducted with the data being well presented. Unfortunately, however, the paper is poorly written which makes assessing the science in this paper a very hard task. Indeed, there are many arguments that are hard to follow and there are many redundant and irrelevant statements that often not supported by references.
For example, no reference is provided for the statement (Line 45) “ TRPV-1 channel is involved in sensory processing and mainly expressed on  nociceptor” .
The followings are examples of sentences that are either do not make sense or hard to follow:
L32: For the distinct electrophysiological properties of HCN channels, it is the principal pacemaker for rhythmical regulator and determinant for resting membrane potential in nervous system and sinoatrial node cells (Benarroch, 2013; Biel et al., 2009)”.
L38: Interestingly, because the maximal inhibition of lidocaine on HCN channel currents is only ~50% (Meng et al., 2011), therefore more potent HCN channel blockers including ZD7288, clonidine, and dexmedetomidine have been found to extend the nerve block durations for lidocaine and ropivacaine (Brummett et al., 2011; …”
L62: All the study mice were housed in standard conditions
L63: Before formal experiments, mice were…..


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

Input:
Title: SOIL RESPIRATION AND ITS Q10 RESPONSE TO VARIOUS GRAZING SYSTEMS OF A TYPICAL STEPPE IN INNER MONGOLIA, CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The aim of the paper is not clear with poor language expression.More similar reports have been published.This paper has no new ideas.More recent references were not cited.
Experimental design: The design is not good ,and the experimental tome is too short.The obtained data are not enough to get the conclusions.
Validity of the findings: No interacting discussions were provided.More work is repeated.
Additional comments: Your paper is more about data collection,and there is no new ideas and new integrated conclusions supported by current data set.More similar reports have been published.Only limited references were cited.


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

Input:
Title: SOIL RESPIRATION AND ITS Q10 RESPONSE TO VARIOUS GRAZING SYSTEMS OF A TYPICAL STEPPE IN INNER MONGOLIA, CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Nie et al conducted an experiment in a temperate grassland ecosystem in Inner Mongolia to study the effects of grazing on soil respiration and its temperature sensitivity. The manuscript is well organized and fits to the scope of the Journal. The results showed that different grazing treatments showed different soil respiration and its Q10, and soil microclimate and root biomass are the main factors determining RS and Q10 under various grazing treatments. The results are generally well presented as tables or figures and the writing is easy to follow.

Unfortunately, the methods and discussion need further improvement. The methods should be more detailed and the discussion need to be more in-depth and developed, instead of simply comparing with previous findings.

L32 Basic soil properties are too broad. The specific soil properties affected by grazing in this study may be more appropriate.
Experimental design: The authors provided three hypotheses to be verified. The hypotheses should be more specific, e.g. how grazing systems would change soil respiration and temperature and by what mechanisms.

Why do you conduct measurement in Dec.? If you want to explore the dynamics of RS in winter, one measurement is not enough (L100).

Also, the measurement period is too short (less than a year), which is the main limitation of this study.

Only one collar may be not enough to overcome the influence of spatial variation of soil respiration, as your study plot is 50 m2 (L101).

Do you measure soil temperature and soil moisture adjacent to collar? (L110-111).

How many samples of for root biomass in each plot and you should supply the diameter of drill sampler (L118-119).

L143. “e” should be italic.

Authors should provide detailed information on how they calculated the Q10 for each month, using the daily mean RS or others.

The α level should be provided for statistics.
Validity of the findings: Why the RS peaked in different months across the three grazing systems (L172-173)? This needs an explanation.

Authors showed that aboveground biomass increased during the experiment, L190, but with what? Sampling period or grazing systems? It should be rewritten and clearly.

I disagree with the authors’ perspective that grazing increased Q10 directly (L222). Because grazing is a method, it influences soil respiration and Q10 through changing environment, such as soil microclimate, photosynthesis, root exudates, soil organic carbon, microbes……

Therefore, the SEM (Fig. 6) should be revised. I suggest the authors to put grazing as a treatment, which changes AGB, soil T, soil M (and other variables), and further lead to changes in soil respiration and Q10.

Authors used “grazing systems”, “grazing sites”. The terms should be consistent throughout the manuscript.

L236-237 Why the rhizosphere respiration in higher in grazing systems than in grazing exclusion systems. This study did not partition components of RS.

L242-244 Authors concluded that DOC exerted important role in soil carbon mineralization, but this is not caused by the positive effects of grazing on DOC. This sentence should be rewritten.

L255 Soil microbial community is affected by environmental variables. You should discuss the change of F: B regarding soil properties or others under grazing intensity and restoration.

L269-271 What positive factors or processes? You should add explanation, such as substrate diffusion.

L276 Generally, there is comparability when site characteristics (the latitude, climate, vegetation type, topography, et al) are comparable between two study sites.

L286-287 It is ambiguous, please rewrite.

L308 The enzyme activity is correlated with temperature sensitivity of SOM decomposition, maybe you can get something from the below paper:
Li et al. Hydrolase kinetics to detect temperature-related changes in the rates of soil organic matter decomposition, 2017; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2016.10.004
Additional comments: All comments are shown above.


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

Input:
Title: SOIL RESPIRATION AND ITS Q10 RESPONSE TO VARIOUS GRAZING SYSTEMS OF A TYPICAL STEPPE IN INNER MONGOLIA, CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This is an interesting manuscript, which explored the effects of grazing on soil respiration of  typical steppe in Inner Mongolia, China. I recommend to accept this paper for publication after minor revision.
Experimental design: The experimental design of the study is scientific and rigorous, the method is sufficiently detailed, and the statistical analysis is reasonable.
Validity of the findings: A better understanding of the effects of grazing on Rs has practical implications for ecological restoration in typical steppe.
Additional comments: In general, the experimental design of the study is scientific and rigorous, the method is sufficiently detailed, and the statistical analysis is reasonable. What’s more, the study is very interesting since it is a field study that analyze interesting properties related with climatic conditions and several microbiological measured in a laboratory some years after the implantation of several management systems as well as during a vegetation growing cycle, which is quite unusual. However, I still have the following concerns.
1. In lines 76-79, three research hypotheses have been proposed. The author should provide more research progress on the above introductions for the second research hypothesis.
2. In the SEM model of Figure 6, the author based on which research foundation to select these factors into the model?
3. In lines 127-129, according to Wu J et al. (1990), the MBC value should be calculated as the difference in carbon content divided by the conversion factor of 0.45 rather than multiplied by it. The author should check if the description was wrong or the data was calculated incorrectly.
4. Figure 4 showed linear relationships between soil respiration and root biomass from December 2014 to September 2015. Why the author only described the linear correlation of the growing season in lines 194-195.
5. In line 206, “Total PLFAs and each different kind of PLFAs all increased over the 2015 growing season in all grazing systems”, does the increase mean that it changes with what? Time change or increase in grazing intensity? Please state clearly and the author should also pay attention to other places in the text.


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

Input:
Title: SOIL RESPIRATION AND ITS Q10 RESPONSE TO VARIOUS GRAZING SYSTEMS OF A TYPICAL STEPPE IN INNER MONGOLIA, CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: ok
Experimental design: ok
Validity of the findings: ok
Additional comments: better revision with good responses


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

Input:
Title: SOIL RESPIRATION AND ITS Q10 RESPONSE TO VARIOUS GRAZING SYSTEMS OF A TYPICAL STEPPE IN INNER MONGOLIA, CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Literature: the authors cited too many literature either from the local region or from Chinese colleagues. They should cite more classic and relevant work on soil respiration and grazing.

Language: it need further improvement.

Implications of the study for better mananing the temperate grassland need better clarification.
Experimental design: Grazing: there are two grazing treatments in the study (yearlong vs. rest-rotation) in addition to the no grazing control. When the authors mention "grazing" in the analysis or writing, they need to be specific - what type of grazing you mean?

For example, hypothesis sections, do both grazing treatments have the same effects?
Validity of the findings: The novelty of the study is still not explained or highlighted enough. Also, limitations of the study (e.g. short experimental duration, no replicate within each plot, problems with Rs partitioning) may be specified in a paragraph, with suggestions for further improvement.
Additional comments: L380: Zhu and Cheng 2011 – it should be the Global Change Biology paper.

Figure 1: x-axis should be a continuous variable (day), not the categorical variable (month).  Note that the measurement interval is not fixed. What do error bars mean?

Figure 2: title on y-axis is missing.

Figure 4: indicate the measurement month for these dots with three different symbols.

Figure 6: it was unclear what “grazing” means here. The study has three treatments, no grazing, grazing 1 (yearlong grazing), grazing 2 (rest-rotation grazing). The SEM should be re-formulated. May construct a SEM for yearlong and rest-rotation grazing (compared to no grazing) separately?


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: EFFECT OF HEAT-KILLED STREPTOCOCCUS THERMOPHILUS ON TYPE 2 DIABETES RATS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Gao and colleagues present interesting data regarding the effect of an heat-inactivated extract of S. thermophilus on OGTT and low grade inflammation in diabetic rats.

Overall, the manuscript is nicely structured with an appropriate design according to the scientific question posed at the beginning.

The only weakness in this case are:
1- It is often mentioned that the effect of S. thermophilus on metabolism in humans is unknown. However, the study is on rats, thus I suggest to restructure this sentence removing the word human.

2- More in general, many sentences lack the preposition or, when used, it is wrong, see e.g. lines 88, 194, 196 and so on.. I suggest to involve an English native speaker to restructure sentences in a more appropriate fashion. Alternately, you can take advantage of English services available online.

3- Some more background information are needed in both the introduction section and in the discussion section. For instance, it is not introduced the role of the microbiota in promoting systemic and tissutal low grade inflammation through endotexemia, thus determining insulin sensitivity in liver and adipose tissue (Prattichizzo et al., 2018 Ageing Research Reviews x 2). Also, in the discussion section, some space is spent to describe previous work with S.thermophilus but not related to metabolism (e.g. intestinal infection). I suggest to remove these parts and rather comment relevant results obtained with different bacterial specied in similar settings. For instance, a recent paper (Plovier et al., 2017 Nat Med ) suggest that pasteurized Akkermansia Municiphila is able to ameliorate HFD induced dysglycemia, a finding similar to those of this paper . Your results are compatible with an effect mediated by a proteic product stimulating the epithelial barrier function of the colon, considering the lower circulating levels of LPS and of pro-inflammatory cytokines. The discussion could be more focused on this point.
Experimental design: The experimental design is ok to address the research question posed at the beginning. The methods are sufficiently detailed to guarantee replication. Ethical approval has been obtained.
Validity of the findings: Data appear robust and statistically appropriate. Graphs with individual points are preferable respect to histograms, but this is not mandatory. Conclusions are not overstated but the discussion cold be better balanced (see above).

The only experimental gap regard the histological analysis of the villi in the ileum and colon. These data should be further substantiated by expression data (mRNA expression through RT PCR or direct staining of proteins in tissue sections of the same tissues) regarding the expression levels of junction proteins, e.g. occludin, ZO-1 etc (see Plovier et al., 2017 Nat Med). These would be of utmost importance to hypothesize an effect on barrier function and endotexemia.
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: EFFECT OF HEAT-KILLED STREPTOCOCCUS THERMOPHILUS ON TYPE 2 DIABETES RATS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In this paper the Authors aim to evaluate the effect of heat-killed S. thermophilus on metabolic parameters using a diabetic rat model.
Below are listed some of my comments and suggestions:
-	Figures numbering from Fig.3 onward does not match the order of their presentation in the text; (in particular, line 201 it is reported that fig 3 represents blood glucose levels after glucose load in CONT+ST group compared to CON group. However, this graph is missing).
-	The discussion section should include a paragraph discussing the results on the effects of heat-killed S. thermophilus on blood glucose during a OGTT.
-	Based on which information the dose of heat-killed S. thermophilus has been chosen? Please, indicate how long heat-killed S thermophilus has been administered to the rats.
Experimental design: The experiments are well designed; however, I only wonder if it would have been better to include an additional group treated with live microorganism. To the best of my knowledge, there are no studies investigating the effect of live S. thermophilus on glycemic parameters; and the Authors do not mention any reference in this regard.
Validity of the findings: The purpose of the work is interesting and still up to date. Researches aimed to shed light on the effect of “killed” probiotics and related-metabolites on human health and researches focused to indagate if live probiotics possess sufficient stability to survive the acid environment of the stomach and reach the intestine in intact form are of fundamental importance to understand the usefulness of probiotics preparations. In this regard, the study fits well into the scientific debate by providing evidence on the effectiveness of heat killed S. thermophilus on glycemic parameters.
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: EFFECT OF HEAT-KILLED STREPTOCOCCUS THERMOPHILUS ON TYPE 2 DIABETES RATS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: English is improved, as has the space dedicated to the topic of the paper. However, some citations could have been better choose, for example ref. n 10 reports the effect of dysbiosis on hepatic fat accumulation, rather than the development of insulin resistance. I rather suggest to use this other reference, since it is more appropriate to explain the proposed mechanism (doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2018.10.003).
Experimental design: Still no data showing the expression of junction protein in the intestine has been provided. So my comment remains the same of the first submission.
Validity of the findings: improved
Additional comments: Language is greatly improved. However, none of the other comments of this reviewer has been addressed. Still expression data of junction proteins are lacking and some relevant references are not cited. Thus, i suggest to perform another round of minor 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: EFFECT OF HEAT-KILLED STREPTOCOCCUS THERMOPHILUS ON TYPE 2 DIABETES RATS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I have no further comments
Experimental design: I have no further comments
Validity of the findings: I have no further comments
Additional comments: I have no further comments


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

Input:
Title: EFFECT OF HEAT-KILLED STREPTOCOCCUS THERMOPHILUS ON TYPE 2 DIABETES RATS
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Ok
Experimental design: Ok
Validity of the findings: Ok
Additional comments: The authors satisfactorily addressed the comments of this reviewer. I suggest to accept the paper in this revised 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: DYNAMICS OF SOIL PROPERTIES AND FUNGAL COMMUNITY STRUCTURE IN CONTINUOUS-CROPPED ALFALFA FIELDS IN NORTHEAST CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript investigated the soil properties and fungal community composition from different continuous cropping years of alfalfa fields. The authors found significant variations of soil physiochemical properties, fungal community in soil samples less than 10 years and more than 10 years. They also found alfalfa continuous cropping increased the relative abundances of some plant pathogens, and soil total P, available P contents were the important soil factors in affecting the soil fungal community.
The topic is original, and the logic is clear. In general, the manuscript is well written with few grammatical and type errors. However, it seems that several defects are still included in this manuscript.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Introduction
1.	Lines 70-72: “However, a long-term survey showed that the contents of soil organic carbon, total nitrogen, available phosphorus and soil nitrate nitrogen decreased within 10 years of continuous cropping of alfalfa, but then increased after alfalfa grew more than 10 years” Please give a detailed explanation about this phenomenon instead of simply describing the results .
Materials and methods
2.	Line 172: “The Chao richness, Shannon diversity, Simpson diversity” Please use the right alpha diversity noun, such as Richness; Shannon Index et al.
3.	Lines 183-185: “The fungal OTUs’ taxonomic information was uploaded to FUNGuild (http://www.stbates.org/guilds/app.php) for functional prediction (Nguyen et al., 2016).”, did you only choose the high accuracy of “Highly Probable” and “Probable”?
Results
4.	Line 257: “The number of phylotype ranged from 555 to 746,” referred to observed species (Richness)?
5.	Lines 263-264: “In addition, other α-diversity indices of Chao1 richness, Shannon’s diversity and Simpson’s diversity also differed among different treatments (Table 2).” Please use the right alpha diversity noun.
Discussion
6.	Line 288: “this result is consistent with the report of Jiang et al. (2007)”; Line 293 “this result was basically consistent with the finding of Dong et al. (2016),” Line 298 “this result was also found in a long-term investigation by Fan et al. (2011),” The authors only declared the result was consistent with other peoples’ study, please explain the underlying reasons about the changes of the soil physiochemical properties.
7.	Line 310: “this result is basically consistent with the report of Luo et al. (2018),” please explain why?
8.	Lines 380-381: “Similarly, Song et al. (2018) found that the soil fungal community composition was significantly affected by the continuous cropping of Coptis chinensis”, please explain the underlying reasons?


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: DYNAMICS OF SOIL PROPERTIES AND FUNGAL COMMUNITY STRUCTURE IN CONTINUOUS-CROPPED ALFALFA FIELDS IN NORTHEAST CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Lack of proper control to attribute the observed results due to the continuous cropping.
Experimental design: My biggest concern for this paper is the experimental design. Basically, this paper lack proper control. Authors did not mention the details of the field set up (from line 107-109) and my understanding is each treatment only has one area (more than 900 m2). It will be nice to see how the treatment arrangement. Were these treatment randomly arranged? How much apart between two treatments? Authors did sample 3 samples from each treatment (each sample from ~300 m2). Thus, the replication is not a proper replication. In addition, authors did not include any control (year 0 for each treatment, so the change of soil properties or shift of microbial communities can be attribute to the alfalfa growing, or a nearby soil samples from each treatment at least can give readers the variability of the fields in that area). Assumption of these sites started with same soil properties is not valid.

Regarding figures and tables, authors did not mention what is the data in the tables/figures and what is the error bar. Are they present as mean+/- s.e.? How many reps do they use… How the data from figure 3 comes from? Did the authors simply use mean from 3 samples?

Methods section:
Please provide the detailed field design. I assume alfalfa was monoculture? And no grazing on the site? Line 114, alfalfa was mowed to the soil surface twice in June and August…. Did the material got removed or remained on site? Line 124: the other was dried in the room for soil properties analysis. Did all the soil chemical analysis done using room temperature dried soil (e.g., KCl extraction)?
Fungal MiSeq data: for alpha diversity, authors randomly resampled the sequence depth to the same level. However, other analysis was done by the original sequences. Why not use all re-sampled to the same depth data for all the fungal analysis?
Validity of the findings: In a number of places, authors indicate continuous cropping affect soil fungal community via changing soil properties (e.g., Line 374-375, 392-393). Is it possible that continuous cropping can have a direct effect on soil fungal communities (e.g., rhizosphere effect) and this effect could also directly shift the soil microbial community overtime. Of course, soil microbial communities can be shifted by the soil properties (and verse vice!). However, authors seem only emphasized on cropping -> soil properties-> microbial community. Fungal activities can indeed influence soil properties as well!
Additional comments: Can authors also explain why they not include bacterial communities here?

Line 255-257: not sure I understand the coverage values here.


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: DYNAMICS OF SOIL PROPERTIES AND FUNGAL COMMUNITY STRUCTURE IN CONTINUOUS-CROPPED ALFALFA FIELDS IN NORTHEAST CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Yao et al present a study which  investigated the soil properties and fungal community composition from different continuous cropping years of alfalfa fields. The extent of the study  is rather impressive and certainly is a current hot topic in soil ecology.I appreciate the study and  unanimously find it is well written, , but at the same time I am not sure what is novel about it. I think that the study is nice, but lacks the twist to make it novel enough for Peer J.
Experimental design: The study is sound in design and thorough in execution. I think the analyses are quite solid and informative.  With this said, I find some aspects of bioinformatics needing further improvement or clarifications.How long is the sequenced amplicon? How long were the paired end sequences?  I am also somewhat concerned about sequence data treatise. If my memory serves, CD-HIT performs suboptimally when the data are not truncated to equal lengths as recommended in the original publication. Thus, the richness estimators >1000 OTUs may be partially driven by the data analyses. However, leaving the data without truncating is a rather common practice and I cannot hold it against the authors. Should the authors confirm this my thinking be correct and find it in their benefit to reassess, I would encourage that.
Validity of the findings: To some extent, I think the findings from this study is not necessarily ground-breaking. I recommend using Social Network Analysis to further determine the  differences among fungal community from different continuous cropping years of alfalfa fields.
Additional comments: I think this is potentially an important paper. However, the sequence data and statistical analysis may need to be partial re-done. If these issues can be adequately addressed in revision, the manuscript may be accepted.


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

Input:
Title: DYNAMICS OF SOIL PROPERTIES AND FUNGAL COMMUNITY STRUCTURE IN CONTINUOUS-CROPPED ALFALFA FIELDS IN NORTHEAST CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors have done well in revising the ms and addressing those of my comments on the earlier version of the ms. I would be happy to recommend the acceptance of the revised ms for publication in the journal.


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

Input:
Title: DYNAMICS OF SOIL PROPERTIES AND FUNGAL COMMUNITY STRUCTURE IN CONTINUOUS-CROPPED ALFALFA FIELDS IN NORTHEAST CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: no comment


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

Input:
Title: EXTRACTION OF POLYSACCHARIDES FROM AMARANTHUS HYBRIDUS L. BY HOT WATER AND ANALYSIS OF THEIR ANTIOXIDANT ACTIVITY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: See "General comments for the author"
Experimental design: See "General comments for the author"
Validity of the findings: See "General comments for the author"
Additional comments: The study by Tang et al. describes the extraction, purification and determination of antioxidant activity of two relatively high molecular weight polysaccharide (PS) fractions derived from vegetative tissues of Amaranthus hybridus plants. The study represents a welcome contribution to the existing knowledge of the nutritional components present in amaranth plants, which has predominantly been obtained from the analysis of the highly nutritive seeds produced by the three recognized grain amaranth species (although several studies reporting antioxidant activity in the leafy fraction of various vegetable amaranth species are available; see below). It also presents a comprehensive analysis of the antioxidant capacity (AOC) of these PS fractions, which is unusual and which was based on the use of several analytical assays designed to measure reactive oxygen species of diverse chemical nature. However, there are several aspects of this MS that must be improved in order to be suitable for publication. These are listed below:
Major concerns:
1. The quality of the English language of the MS needs to be significantly increased. Many sections of the MS are difficult to understand, are confusing, or are their meaning is unclear. Examples highlighting these deficiencies are mentioned below.
2. A brief explanation of the chemistry responsible for the antioxidant capacity of carbohydrates should be included in the “Introduction”. The authors might like to include the following information in this respect:  Regoli and Winston (1999) Quantification of the oxidant scavenging capacity of antioxidants for peroxynitrite, peroxyl radicals, and hydroxyl radicals. Toxicol. Appl. Pharm. 156: 96-105, and ii) Gutteridge (1984) Reactivity of hydroxyl and hydroxyl-like radical discriminated by release of thiobarbituric acid-reactive material from deoxy sugars, nucleosides and bezoate. Biochem. J. 244: 761-767.
3. In lines 53-54 in “Material and Methods”: Please provide more details about the “specialist” that identified the plants as A. hybridus. A more complete description of the plant material used is also needed:  What is meant by “whole shoot”; does it include stem, leaves and panicles? What was the developmental stage of the plants used for experimentation? Where and how were the plants cultivated? In the field, a green-house or a growth chamber? Were they fertilized? How much light were they exposed to? What kind of soil was employed?
4. The molecular weights (MW) of the two PS fractions of A. hybridus seem to be rather large. Please explain how these MWs compare with PSs described in other plants. See Table 3.
5. Lines 101-115: The authors should include a detailed explanation of the methodology employed to identify and quantify each of the sugars-derivatives generated during the GC/MS analysis. These observation applies to Fig. 7, as well. Here, the chromatograms shown are not very helpful. They offer no information to help the reader gain an idea of the PS´s composition. Since no peak is labeled, their identity remains, unfortunately, unknown. This is a pity, considering that evident differences between the two chromatograms are observed.
6. The results shown in Figs. 1 and 2 could be easily eliminated from this MS or shown as supplementary data. This suggestion, on the basis that the information provided is minimal and also redundant. The latter, considering that the authors stipulated that the methodology employed was designed to extract CHOs. Thus, it is not surprising that the IR and UV scan-data yielded spectra that coincided precisely with this premise.
7. Lines 219-222. The sentence is unclear: please re-phrase. I also ask the authors to explain with greater detail how they reached this conclusion. In addition, more information must be included in the figure legend related to Fig. 3 showing the SEM results. To a reader not familiar with this highly specialized topic, the images shown in this figure are abstract and meaningless. In this context, the statement made in lines 320-321 cannot be properly evaluated since no images of a "damaged" PS film were included in Fig. 3 for comparison. In general, Fig. 3 legend is unable to explain the images shown. What are A and B supposed to mean? What are the differences that should be highlighted between the images? What is the reader supposed to learn from these images? The addition of contrasting controls, as mentioned above, would have been helpful.
8. Three peaks are observed in Fig. 4. It is not clear which correspond to the PS fractions?
9. In Fig. 5B, are absorbance values of 4.0 experimentally valid?
10. Data shown in Fig. 6 is not relevant. It should be added as supplementary material. Usually, the use of standards is supposed to produce a straight line if the size-exclusion separation is working properly. Why did the authors omit to show the position where the two PSs eluted in the context of this graph? Mention of the standards used to build it is required.
11. AOC data could be included in a single figure.
12. Title of Table 1 has typographical errors that should be corrected. In addition, the title of Table 2 is misleading, since it seems to refer to the purified PS fractions instead of the crude PS preparation, as stated.
13. Data in Table 4 does not contribute much to determine the origin of the different monosaccharides (e.g., cell wall, hemicellulose, starch, etc.) nor is it connected with data that could permit to gain an insight about the possible structure of these uncommonly large and most probably complex PSs. In this respect, the following study in which the composition and partial structure of the non-starch polysaccharides of amaranth seeds was reported, might be helpful to the authors:  Burisová et al. (2001) Isolation and characterization of the non-starch polysaccharides of amaranth seeds. Chem. Pap. 55: 254-260. Do the studies reporting vegetative PS isolated from other plant species, included as supporting information in the “Introduction”, describe partial or total structure of these apparently complex molecules? It is strongly recommended that a comparison in terms of CHO composition, AOC and, perhaps structure, between the A. hybridus and vegetative PSs from other plant species (e.g., those mentioned in the “introduction”) is included in the “Discussion”.
Minor concerns:
1. In the “Abstract”, please be aware that A hybridus is not considered a typical source of grain (mostly due to the pigmented nature of its seeds), although it is believed to be the ancestor of the three recognized grain amaranth species: A. hypochondiacus, A. cruentus and A. caudatus (see Wu and Blair [2017] Diversity in grain amaranths and relatives distinguished by genotyping by sequencing (GBS). Front Plant Sci 8: 1960). Also, please change “…the Amaranthus family Amaranthceae.” to “…the Amaranthaceae family”.
2. In the “Abstract” and subsequent sections of the MS, the change from “aerial parts of the plant” or “above-ground parts” to “shoots” or “vegetative tissues” is suggested.
3. In the “Abstract” and subsequent sections of the MS, the meaning of the abbreviation Vc should be clearly defined when first used. I guess the authors meant it to indicate vitamin C or ascorbic acid.
4. Please rephrase the last sentence of the “Abstract”. Its meaning is unclear and it does not specify how the objectives stated will be achieved.
5. “Amaranthus hybridus” should be added as a keyword.
6. In lines 32-36 of the “Introduction” only one rather obscure and dated reference is included to support the nutritional and nutraceutical value of amaranth. Several recent reviews on this subject have been recently reported and should be included. Among these are the following:  i) Montoya-Rodríguez et al. (2015) Identification of bioactive peptide sequences from amaranth (Amaranthus hypochondriacus) seed proteins and their potential role in the prevention of chronic diseases. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 14: 139-158; ii) Venskutonis and Kraujalis (2013) Nutritional components of amaranth seeds and vegetables: A review on composition, properties, and uses. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 12: 381-412; iiI) Rastogi and Shukla (2013) Amaranth: A new millennium crop of nutraceutical values. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 53: 109-125, and iv) Caselato-Sousa and Amaya-Farfán (2012) State of knowledge on amaranth grain: a comprehensive review. J Food Sci 77: R93-R104. Also needed are reference to various previous reports describing presence of antioxidant activity in vegetative tissues of various amaranth species, including A. hybridus. These are described in detail in the review by Venskutonis and Kraujalis, 2013, mentioned above. This information could be compared with the results reported by the authors of the MS under revision, in order to determine if the A. hybridus vegetative tissue-related PSs extracted represent a significant improvement, as stated, in terms of AOC
7. In lines 43-44: what is meant by “wide distribution”? Also, the statement “…high [source] content of soluble polysaccharide plant…” should be validated by comparison with other plant PS sources.
8. Line 45: Meaning of the sentence is unclear. Please re-phrase.
9. Lines 56-60:  Please include the complete information about the companies that provided the chemicals employed. For instance, change “St. Louis, USA” to “St. Louis, MO, USA”. I guess DPPH was also produced by Sigma, but provided by a local company. Add city and state location for Whatman and Pharmacia.
10. Lines 63-64: perhaps the authors meant “The aboveground parts of A. hybridus were collected and washed, dried, ground and passed through 80 mesh screens”. If the samples were indeed ground, please provide the method used. Was it by mortar and pestle, using a mechanical mill or another method?
11. Lines 66 to 69: Please re-phrase this paragraph: As it stands it is reiterative and difficult to follow. Perhaps start with: “A step-wise extraction, using solvents having increasing polarity, was used to eliminate pigments, phenolics, carotenoids, and other interfering compounds from the plant materials used for PS preparation”.
12. Lines 77-78: Perhaps, the authors meant "yield" instead of "purity".
13. Line 82: It is not clear whether this step was performed before or after precipitation of the PS powder with aq. ethanol.
14. Line 84: Present in the upper phase?
15. Line 90: The authors should be aware that the phenol sulfuric acid method used for carbohydrate quantification is rather unspecific.
16. Lines 106-107: What is meant by “…decompressed moisture completely…”
17. Lines 110-111: please specify how were acetic anhydride and pyridine eliminated. With a stream of N2 gas? ¿Other method(s)?
18. Line 180: What is meant by “Response surface methodology”. A suitable reference related to this methodology should be included.
19. Line 182-183: the authors should be aware that “rate” is usually measured in the context of time. Wouldn´t the use of "percentage" be a more accurate term?
20. Line 186: What could be the origin of the protein “contamination” detected in the PS fractions? Could it be chemically associated with the PSs? Could it include antioxidant enzymes?
21. Lines 240-241: Then, how can the 3% protein content detected in the PS preparations be explained?
22. Line 306: Please define the term "cytoderm". Is it a cell wall, typically of a desmid or diatom? A membrane?
23. Lines 306-309: The authors should notice the highly redundant use of the word "difference" and variations in this paragraph. Please re-phrase.
24. Lines 315-319: The meaning of this paragraph is unclear. Please re-phrase.
25. Lines 323-325: The sentence appears to be contradict previous information. It is also difficult to understand. Please rephrase.
26. Lines 328 and 329: The meaning of “active oxygen redox” and “…which it can be inferred that the uronic acid is favoured over the anti-oxidant” is unclear.
27. Lines 336-340: The meaning of this last paragraph in the “Discussion” is obscure. Please re-phrase in order to clarify the message intended for the reader.
28. Lines 343-345. Doesn´t this statement contradict what was stated above, in the “Discussion” section? Please clarify.
29. Lines 345-346: Is the process cost effective? Is it economically viable? Please elaborate.
30. Lines 357-358: Are these minor contributions enough to endow these co-authors with the right to be listed as a co-author of this study?


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: EXTRACTION OF POLYSACCHARIDES FROM AMARANTHUS HYBRIDUS L. BY HOT WATER AND ANALYSIS OF THEIR ANTIOXIDANT ACTIVITY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: although this section complies mostly with the suggested still needs some correction and modifications and there are some questions

Title:  In most papers, the word is written antioxidant or not anti-oxidant, it is necessary to correct it unless there is a reason why it is written like that, and so throughout the manuscript

INTRODUCTION
Line 32- such as benefiting the eyes… What type of benefit does it refer to or how is this benefit?
Line 33.. Use etc. instead of so on
Line 34-36. In the introduction refers to the different bioactivities of the amaranthus grains but not the aerial part of it, which is the part that you used in your study, there are already studies on at least the antioxidant activity of these parts, it would be interesting will review them and if necessary, reference them at least in this part of their study
López-García, G., Baeza-Jiménez, R., Garcia-Galindo, H. S., Dublan-Garcia, O., & Lopez-Martinez, L. X. (2018). Cooking treatments effect on bioactive compounds and antioxidant activity of quintonil (Amaranthus hybridus) harvested in spring and fall seasons. CyTA-Journal of Food, 16 (1), 707-714.
Jiménez-Aguilar, D. M., & Grusak, M. A. (2015). Evaluation of minerals,
phytochemical compounds and antioxidant activity of Mexican,
Central American and African green leafy vegetables. Plant Foods
for Human Nutrition, 70, 357-364.
Jiménez-Aguilar, D. M., & Grusak, M. A. (2017). Minerals, vitamin C,
phenolics, flavonoids and antioxidant activity of Amaranthus leafy
vegetables. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 58, 33-39.

Line 42-43. A. hybridus is a wide distribution, If it is widely distributed in which parts of the world or in which countries can we find it?
Experimental design: although this section complies mostly with the suggested still needs some correction and modifications and there are some questions

MATERIALS
 Line 53. Could you please provide the identification voucher number, the place where it was identified and the geographical location where the amaranthus was collected.
Is the maturity of plants important in the polysaccharide content? If so, please establish the maturity of the plant

Line 69. The extracted material was placed in a drying bottle and dried to a powder. How do you dry the material to get the powder?

Line 78. Please use an  equation editor
Line 85. Please set the lyophilization conditions and the equipment used
Line 89.  Please mention the type and model of the automatic collector
Line 130. use briefly instead of simply
Line 135. Please use an  equation editor
Validity of the findings: although this section complies mostly with the suggested still needs some correction and modifications and there are some questions

Line 273, 280 and 287. IC5O should be IC50 (SUBSCRIPT)
DISCUSSION
Line 337-338. A. hybridus did not have a good scavenging capacity..  should be A. hybridus had not shown good elimination capacity ..

CONCLUSION

The main conclusion comes to the abstract, please try to rewrite it.

Figure 8, the x-axis should start 0 and not -0.5
Additional comments: The results could promote the Amaranthus hybridus consumption as a functional food crop and as an ingredient in food diet.

The discussion has been well designed. However, the manuscript still needs some correction and modifications.


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: EXTRACTION OF POLYSACCHARIDES FROM AMARANTHUS HYBRIDUS L. BY HOT WATER AND ANALYSIS OF THEIR ANTIOXIDANT ACTIVITY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: See below.
Experimental design: See below.
Validity of the findings: See below.
Additional comments: I have carefully examined the revised version of the MS submitted by Tang et al. describing the extraction, purification and determination of antioxidant activity of two relatively high molecular weight polysaccharide (PS) fractions derived from vegetative tissues of Amaranthus hybridus plants. Although some changes suggested by this reviewer were made by the authors, many fundamental questions regarding key aspects of the PS composition and their biological activity remained unanswered or were poorly dealt with. I will again state the salient issues, both major and minor, that need to be properly addressed to reach a suitable level for publication.
Major concerns:
1. The English language quality of the MS is still wanting.
2. The authors were unable to provide a solid explanation of chemistry responsible for the antioxidant capacity (AOC) of carbohydrates, at least in the background information provided in the “Introduction”. Contrary to what is provided in the latter section, that is, that proteins and phenolic acids chemically associated with plant PS provide their AOC, the authors change direction in the “Discussion” section and propose that uronic acids might the responsible for the relatively high AOC produced by both purified A. hybridus PSs. Under these contradictory circumstances, the authors should have made an effort to clarify and support their arguments by adding the appropriate controls, in this case testing if at least commercially available glucuronic acid or pectins had a measurable AOC. Experimental evidence should also be provided to eliminate the possibility that the residual protein still detected in the purified PSs was, inadvertently, the source of their AOC.
3. In “Material and Methods”, the authors ignored the request to provide the name of the “specialist” that identified the plants used in this work as A. hybridus. This introduces a certain degree of uncertainty regarding the identity of the Amaranthus plants used. In this respect it should be noted that A. hybridus plants usually have shorter life cycles than those described by the authors (i.e., from April to September), which introduced the possibility that the authors were probably working with a longer life-spanned Amaranthus species; e.g. A. hypochondriacus. Other information solicited regarding the cultivation of the amaranth plants was either incomplete or not provided at all.
4. The large molecular weights (MW) of the two PS fractions of A. hybridus introduced another contentious aspect to the MS, related to the possibility, even stated by the authors in their rebuttal letter, that such large molecules might be biologically inactive by dint of their large size and, consequently, their inability to freely traverse cell membranes of any kind.
5. The methodology employed to identify and quantify each of the sugars-derivatives generated during the GC/MS analysis remained unclear.
6. The authors mention that, compared with hot water extraction method, the surface structure of polysaccharides was affected by microwave irradiation. It remains unclear why was the method employed compared to the microwave option. Is this method comparable to the water extraction method? Has it been used to extract other plant PSs?
The authors did not respond if the measurement of absorbance values of 4.0 was experimentally valid?
The mass of the dextran polymers used as standards should be included in the figure legend.
I still think that showing all AOC data in a single figure would be a better option.
Minor concerns:
The authors keep ignoring the fact that that A. hybridus is not considered a typical source of grain (mostly due to the pigmented nature of its seeds), although it is believed to be the ancestor of the three recognized grain amaranth species: A. hypochondiacus, A. cruentus and A. caudatus.
In the “Abstract” and subsequent sections of the MS, the meaning of the abbreviation Vc should be clearly defined when first used. I guess the authors meant it to indicate vitamin C or ascorbic acid.


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: EXTRACTION OF POLYSACCHARIDES FROM AMARANTHUS HYBRIDUS L. BY HOT WATER AND ANALYSIS OF THEIR ANTIOXIDANT ACTIVITY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I think the author has completed the review
Experimental design: the author responded according to the objection
Validity of the findings: The author did a good revision work to be able to answer this section
Additional comments: This article shows us other important uses of amaranthus species, it is always good to know how the collection is made and the specific geographical origin of the plant, so that those of us who study this important species have better knowledge and probabilities of comparison between species of the world