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: FILTERED MUD IMPROVES SUGARCANE GROWTH AND MODIFIES THE FUNCTIONAL ABUNDANCE AND STRUCTURE OF SOIL MICROBIAL POPULATIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In this study the authors assessed the impact of filtered mud (FM) amendment on soil chemistry, soil microbial community composition and sugarcane plant growth in greenhouse pot experiments. Three FM:soil mix ratios were compared against non-FM soils. The authors found that FM significantly altered soil mineral content, microbial community composition and improved several aspects of plant growth (height, tiller count, diameter).

The manuscript is well written and easy to read, and so is the research question straightforward and simple to understand. However, many aspects related to the microbial community analysis can be improved such as by using genus level units instead of limiting the analysis to phyla and classes, and by showing whether the FM material itself contained distinct consortia of microorganisms. These are likely to help with discussions as I found that the reported microbial taxonomies were too broad to infer their functions.
Experimental design: A major limitation of this study is the small number of replicates (three per treatment). Soil microbial communities are arguably one of the most complex ecosystems, and as such three replicates may not sufficiently capture the variability in this system (the overlapping data points in figure 5 for example).

In the microbial community analysis the authors do not go beyond phylum and class level lineages. As such, I found that the inferences of microbial function in these systems were overly broad and generalized. For example, authors discuss the importance of Actinobacteria, Firmicutes and Proteobacteria (lines 401 to 423) in soils, however, do all soil Actinobacteria, Firmicutes and Proteobacteria possess these functional capabilities? Authors should use at least genus level units to provide better resolution in identifying the exact microbial taxa responding to FM amendment.
Validity of the findings: I have several comments/questions related to the interpretation of the data:

Can authors provide reasons how FM increases plant productivity? Since FM is composed of organic matter, one assumption would be that plants are receiving more minerals from the FM amendment. Was mineral content in plant material measured to support this inference?

Is FM sterile or does it contain its own consortia of microorganisms? Is it possible that FM amendment introduced microorganisms into the system thus the distinct microbial community composition in FM soils compared with control? Are any of these microbial taxa potentially plant growth promoting species? If FM material contains beneficial or pathogenic microorganisms, how can we ensure these consortia are consistent across FM batches?

The snapshot data reported here is insufficient to show that FM slowed the release of N to match plant uptake and thus improve plant growth (e.g. line 343, 372). Were more samples taken serially to support this?

What are the reasons FM is preferred or superior to say biochar or other forms of organic amendment? Is there data comparing the benefits of FM and plant performance in FM to other amendments?
Additional comments: Line 187: Vernier caliper

Line 222: please describe what the sequencing library layout was, paired end vs single end, how many bp.

Line 227: which version of QIIME did authors use?

Line 227-235: Can authors provide an explanation as to why 97% OTUs were generated as opposed to using amplicon sequence variants (ASVs)? The sequencing library and platform used here should support ASVs. Please see https://www.nature.com/articles/ismej2017119

Line 235: how were microbial taxonomies inferred, with reference to which database?

Line 276-290: please provide statistical support for the reported enrichment/depletion of microbial and fungal taxa.

Line 294: class level lineages are too broad to make claims such as “ammonium oxidizing Betaproteobacteria and Gammaproteobacteria”. If would be better if authors can identify which ammonium oxidizing species within the beta and gammaproteobacteria classes are enriched in FM treatment.

Line 296: similar with above comment- which member of the Actinobacteria class are N-cycling?

Line 306: typo “choa”.

Line 332: typo “Choloflexi”

Line 349: “since a corresponding higher N uptake was observed in these treatments”. Can authors clarify which data indicates higher N uptake, was mineral content of plant material measured?

Line 373: “However, the reduction in cellulase activity in FM treatments, especially in FM1 and FM2, could be linked to its excessive utilization by the cellulolytic organisms to degrade the complex cellulose contained in the FM.” This is an interesting inference of the data- does the use of cellulase reduce its availability? Can authors comment on alternate explanations of the data e.g. FM inhibits cellulase activity and/or microorganisms that produce cellulase?

Line 377: is “unstable” carbon standard terminology?

Line 397-400: can authors please clarify how an increase in nitrifying bacteria (chloroflexi) is “a reason for the lower nitrification observed in the FM treatments”?

Line 424: this inference is false. Having the largest number of OTUs does not make Ascomycota the most abundant phyla (e.g. the OTUs are all low relative abundance).

Line 438-440: can authors clarify how clustering patterns in soil community composition indicate stimulation of beneficial microbial taxa? How is this inferred as there is no information relating to which exact taxa were enriched/depleted in these soils?

Sequence data not publicly available. A submission should be made to NCBI SRA and the BioProject accession number reported in the main 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: FILTERED MUD IMPROVES SUGARCANE GROWTH AND MODIFIES THE FUNCTIONAL ABUNDANCE AND STRUCTURE OF SOIL MICROBIAL POPULATIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: I reviewed the article: "Filtered mud improves sugarcane growth and modifies the functional abundance and structure of soil microbial populations" for Peer J journal.

The article is clear and the English level is satisfactory. The authors evaluated the impact of the insertion of FM (filtered mud) on sugarcane development and on soil microbial communities. I have few comments about the paper.

It is important to highlight if the authors are evaluating rhizosphere or bulk soil samples. This definition could improve the discussion section. Furthermore, in the Results and Discussion sections (lines 294, 295, and 369 respectively) the authors talked about the enrichment of ammonia oxidizers and N-cycling organisms. However, they didn't evaluate specifically these communities. They concluded this because they observed a fluctuation in the relative abundance of Proteobacteria and Actinobacteria phyla.
If we consider the whole functional diversity associated with both phyla, It's almost impossible to affirm this. I suggest to the authors modify this part of the article.
Experimental design: The experimental design wasn't so innovative but it was efficient. I suggest to the authors briefly describe the methodology applied to evaluate the enzymatic activity.
Validity of the findings: The article brings interesting results, but part of these results was expected. But they are robust and controlled.
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: FILTERED MUD IMPROVES SUGARCANE GROWTH AND MODIFIES THE FUNCTIONAL ABUNDANCE AND STRUCTURE OF SOIL MICROBIAL POPULATIONS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have responded and improved according to my direction and recommendations and they have worked hard to improve this manuscript.
Experimental design: The author has defended his argument by showing statistical books and other explanations for experimental design which I recommend
Validity of the findings: After the author has corrected all the suggestions from the reviewers, this article is enough to add novelty to science and new discoveries from the object of his research
Additional comments: The research adds new information about microbial diversity and population due to mud fillers applied to soil. It has been written well enough so that readers will easily understand it and add scientific insight to other researchers.


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: FILTERED MUD IMPROVES SUGARCANE GROWTH AND MODIFIES THE FUNCTIONAL ABUNDANCE AND STRUCTURE OF SOIL MICROBIAL POPULATIONS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors worked on a new version of the article "Filtered mud improves sugarcane growth and modifies the functional abundance and structure of soil microbial populations" and they made some improvements to the text.
I was satisfied with these modifications.
Experimental design: Ok.
Validity of the findings: It is not a completely new article, but it was well conducted.
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: TROPHIC NICHE BUT NOT ABUNDANCE OF COLLEMBOLA AND ORIBATIDA CHANGES WITH DROUGHT AND FARMING SYSTEM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: Please see pdf as I had questions about your design.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Dear author,

Thank you for your contribution. I enjoyed reading your manuscript, and hope my comments are useful to improve it.

Cheers


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: TROPHIC NICHE BUT NOT ABUNDANCE OF COLLEMBOLA AND ORIBATIDA CHANGES WITH DROUGHT AND FARMING SYSTEM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The writing is mostly clear (see attached PDF for comments on minor ambiguities). Professional English used throughout.

Literature and background appear sufficient.

Article structure, figures and tables appear professional. It doesn't appear that there is a colour scheme across the figures, in case that matters. Raw data on arthropod abundances and stable isotopes is shared.

There are statements in the discussion that are difficult to determine if they are self-contained or referring to the included references. For example, Line 257: "In fact, previous studies on the same experimental fields found higher microbial biomass in the organically than the conventionally managed fields indicating a higher availability of microbes as food resource, and this is likely to be a consequence of higher amounts of soil organic matter (Esperschütz et al. 2007; Fließbach et al. 2007)." It's not fully clear if this study is hypothesizing that there is higher OM, or if the two referenced studies showed higher OM in these experimental fields, or if the two referenced studies found higher OM in organically managed fields elsewhere. See comments in discussion for other sentences that aren't clear. However, more importantly, these statements could be made stronger and more clear by including more information on the soil characteristics of the sampled soil in this experiment.
Experimental design: This study is original primary research, with well defined questions and hypotheses. The introduction outlines how the research fills an identified knowledge gap.

This study is part of a long term project, which appears to be well set-up for answering the questions at hand.

Experimental design (plot design) appears sufficient.

More information is needed on some key aspects of experimental design including field management (e.g. tillage regimes, cover cropping, etc), sampling design within the plots (e.g. how many samples per plot and where within the plot) and specimen preparation. In particular, tillage and cover cropping can have a large impact on soil moisture content, water infiltration, and water holding capacity.

It is curious that there is no data reported on the soil profile within the plots for this study, especially soil moisture content, percent organic matter, total carbon, total nitrogen (also pH and salinity could be interesting). What was the rainfall that year? These link with the questions at hand and would be highly beneficial to report and correlate.
Validity of the findings: The results appear valid.

Again, I am finding it difficult to evaluate the validity and/or strength of some of the discussion and conclusions without the provision of data on the soil profile, specifically soil moisture and organic matter content in plots. The statements can be made (as they are now, directing us to other references) but would be a lot stronger if the authors provided and assessed their own data.
Additional comments: I found the article to be very well written and interesting, and is of relevance with the continued movement towards sustainable agricultural practices. It is also refreshing to see work in agricultural systems on soil invertebrates, and particularly on research that attempts to tie together the workings of the soil food web. Nice work!

Please see attached pdf for in-text 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: WATERLOGGING TOLERANCE AND RECOVERY CAPABILITY SCREENING IN PEANUT: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF WATERLOGGING EFFECTS ON PHYSIOLOGICAL TRAITS AND YIELD
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: the English expression is not proper, I do highly recommend the help of English native speakers to help in polishing the manuscript.
Experimental design: Material and methods
Plant materials:  the authors need to justify why the 15 lines were chosen, this will help the readers to understand the reason for this research work. Are they the best performing lines or potentially tolerant to waterlogging. This information needs to be made clear to the readers.
Waterlogging treatment: this section is highly mixed up, let the authors stick to waterlogging as a treatment and not mix with the data collection. The critical question is that can groundnuts survive in a waterlogged environment for a whole week, I doubt. So proper justification must be provided to the authors. Furthermore, SPAD and other antioxidant evaluation sections 142 to 148 must be removed. Moreover, it is better to state the dates in periods either after two weeks of planting or a month after planting as opposed to indicating the actual dates. This paper will be read beyond this century.
Determination of SPAD value and chlorophyll fluorescence parameters: one wonders what you meant by the term “ functional leaf” or “functional leaves” the nature of peanuts has nodes, so it would be proper to indicate the position of the measured leaf. What was the significance of taking the SPAD values in addition to the Chlorophyll fluorescence parameter??
Determination of the activities of SOD and CAT: SOD was evaluated as per the previous method though with modification, it would be proper to indicate the modifications, this will help in the repeatability of this particular research. Moreover, you have gone to write the whole process, so it doesn’t warrant the need to indicate the SOD measurements were as per the previous method.
Validity of the findings: Results
Before carrying out correlation, it would be good to carry out ANOVA of the various trait measured among the 15 accessions in this experiment. Once ANOVA is done, then the authors can do correlation analysis.
The authors need to avoid the term “As can be seen from Table 2” and consider replacing it with as shown or indicated
The results section is not well written, and this could be attributed to the very basic analysis; in the introduction, several methods were indicated such as “Membership function analysis, principal component analysis and cluster analysis” the cluster analysis helps in determining the hotspots while PCA applicable in data reduction. Can the authors help the readers to understand why these were mentioned and not shown under results?
Additional comments: Abstract
This work by Zeng et al “Waterlogging tolerance and recovery capability screening in peanut: a comparative analysis of waterlogging effects on physiological traits and yield” carried out the evaluation of 15 lines of peanuts at the pod filling stage against waterlogging as the stress factor. They further carried measurements of various biochemical processes, such as the concentration levels of the antioxidants such as the CAT, SOD in addition to other byproducts of oxidative stress such as the MDA. What came out in their findings is that the concentration levels of the WTC of REL, MDA content, SOD and CAT were decreased compared with that after waterlogging. This could not be true, a plant under stress will increase the production level of MDA as pointed out in various work done by Magwanga et al (2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021),  so this anomaly must be corrected.
Introduction
The introduction is unnecessarily long, with information best transferred to either discussion or methodology, a number of the section describes why the use of a particular parameter, and yet these information’s are the best fit under the materials and methods. Paragraphs 3 to 5 needs to be summarized and much of their contents are either transferred to materials and methods or discussion.
Material and methods
Plant materials:  the authors need to justify why the 15 lines were chosen, this will help the readers to understand the reason for this research work. Are they the best performing lines or potentially tolerant to waterlogging. This information needs to be made clear to the readers.
Waterlogging treatment: this section is highly mixed up, let the authors stick to waterlogging as a treatment and not mix with the data collection. The critical question is that can groundnuts survive in a waterlogged environment for a whole week, I doubt. So proper justification must be provided to the authors. Furthermore, SPAD and other antioxidant evaluation sections 142 to 148 must be removed. Moreover, it is better to state the dates in periods either after two weeks of planting or a month after planting as opposed to indicating the actual dates. This paper will be read beyond this century.
Determination of SPAD value and chlorophyll fluorescence parameters: one wonders what you meant by the term “ functional leaf” or “functional leaves” the nature of peanuts has nodes, so it would be proper to indicate the position of the measured leaf. What was the significance of taking the SPAD values in addition to the Chlorophyll fluorescence parameter??
Determination of the activities of SOD and CAT: SOD was evaluated as per the previous method though with modification, it would be proper to indicate the modifications, this will help in the repeatability of this particular research. Moreover, you have gone to write the whole process, so it doesn’t warrant the need to indicate the SOD measurements were as per the previous method.
Results
Before carrying out correlation, it would be good to carry out ANOVA of the various trait measured among the 15 accessions in this experiment. Once ANOVA is done, then the authors can do correlation analysis.
The authors need to avoid the term “As can be seen from Table 2” and consider replacing it with as shown or indicated
The results section is not well written, and this could be attributed to the very basic analysis; in the introduction, several methods were indicated such as “Membership function analysis, principal component analysis and cluster analysis” the cluster analysis helps in determining the hotspots while PCA applicable in data reduction. Can the authors help the readers to understand why these were mentioned and not shown under results?
Discussion
In this section, misrepresentation of facts has been done “Waterlogging stress can not only damage cell membranes but also reduce the photosynthetic capacity of plant leaves. Studies showed that with the prolongation of waterlogging time, MDA  content in leaves or roots increased, and the activities of SOD and CAT increased (Zhang et al.,2015; Tian et al., 2019)”
The language of expression is wanting “decreased gradually with the passage of experiment time” and I strongly recommend the authors to redo this section in line with properly analysed data.


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: WATERLOGGING TOLERANCE AND RECOVERY CAPABILITY SCREENING IN PEANUT: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF WATERLOGGING EFFECTS ON PHYSIOLOGICAL TRAITS AND YIELD
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript entitled with "Waterlogging tolerance and recovery capability screening in peanut: a comparative analysis of waterlogging effects on physiological traits and yield" reported the changes of enzyme activities and fluorescence parameters among 15 peanut varieties at the pod filling stage after 7 days of waterlogging and drainage. Basically, the manuscript is not acceptable due to the innovation. Why the authors study the waterlogging   stress in peanut? Are they wterlogging sensitive? Why waterlogging for 7 days? I cannot get a clear conclusion after reading the manuscript. Data of the manuscript looks just a section for some other studies.
Experimental design: Why choosing the 7 days of waterlogging and 7 days of drainage? The seeds were sown on 15 August 2020, where are the three replicates to exclude the environment factors?
Validity of the findings: I strongly suggest the authors provided a figure showing the differences of these varieties upon waterlogging and the following recovery stages. The discussion section should relate your study findings to those of other studies.
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: WATERLOGGING TOLERANCE AND RECOVERY CAPABILITY SCREENING IN PEANUT: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF WATERLOGGING EFFECTS ON PHYSIOLOGICAL TRAITS AND YIELD
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: This paper presented a new method to evaluate the waterlogging tolerance of peanut, which has a certain guiding significance for waterlogging tolerant breeding and high yield cultivation of peanut. Based on the comprehensive consideration of the antioxidant and photosynthetic characteristics of leaves after 7 days of waterlogging and 7 days of drainage, the author judged the waterlogging tolerance and recovery of different peanut varieties, and explained the relationship between waterlogging tolerance and recovery and yield. The topic of this paper meets the requirements of the journal, the experiments have certain scientific significance, the experiment design is reasonable, and the logic of context writing is clear. And the diagrams and tables conform to the specification.
In the discussion section, in-depth discussion was carried out, but the deficiency lies in the grammatical problems in the description and expression of the content, and sometimes the narration was too long-winded. Part of the description was not detailed and specific enough.

Introduction：
In the Introduction section, the author can well show the current research progress, research gaps, and put forward the purpose of this experiment.

Materials and methods, and results
The Materials and methods section had concrete details and information, and the author developed a complete description according to the experimental results. But in the waterlogging treatment section, the deficiency was that there was no concrete explanation for "the blank control group".

Discussions:
In the Discussion section, the author can put forward the main findings of this study, which can be summarized as follows: a) different peanut varieties have different responses to waterlogging stress; b) there was no significant relationship between waterlogging tolerance and recovery capability of different varieties, but there was a significant negative correlation between recovery capability and yield decline; c) It is an effective breeding method to select varieties with high recovery capability and less pod number reduction under waterlogging stress.
However, some language descriptions were wordy, and there were grammatical issues. Therefore, it is necessary to make some modifications to the Discussion section, especially to simplify the language.

1. It is necessary to carry out in-depth discussion around three points: a) different peanut varieties have different response mechanisms to waterlogging stress; b) the relationship between waterlogging stress, recovery capability, and yield and yield components; c) The recovery capability of peanut is not the only factor that determines the final yield. In waterlogging tolerance breeding, it is necessary to consider the number of peanut pods per plant after waterlogging.
2. It is not advisable to simply list references, such as L409-417, L425-429, which should be discussed in combination with the topics discussed.
3. The descriptions of some contents are repetitive, such as L373-376 and L412-414. Please simplify the contents.

Other minor mistakes:
L20: Please delete “and” in this sentence.
L30: Please check the grammar of this sentence.
L34: Using “Waterlogging tolerance” and “Recovery capability” is more appropriate to the topic.
L45: To make the sentence more concise, deleting "the process of" is necessary.
L49: Please change “leading to” to “resulting in”.
L50: Delete “resulting in”.
L54: Add “the” before “photosynthetic system”.
L57: Change “sensitive” to “susceptible”.
L63-70: The language should be improved and please check the grammar.
L84-87: The description is wordy.
L91: Please change “led to” to “resulted in”.
L92-94: Please check the grammar of this sentence.
L108-113: It is not enough to list references. And arguments or insights on the subject are required.
L120: Please delete “the” in this line.
L142-144: “SPAD value and chlorophyll fluorescence parameter of leaves were measured after 7 days of waterlogging and 7 days of drainage” should be revised to “SPAD values and chlorophyll fluorescence parameters of leaves were measured after 7 days of waterlogging and 7 days of drainage”.
L169: Please change “record” to “recording”.
L185: Please check the grammar of this sentence.
L228: Please delete “the” in this line.
L238: Please add the sentence “Waterlogging significantly affected the photosynthetic characteristics and antioxidant capacity of peanut leaves. However, there were significant differences in the response of different varieties to waterlogging. ” at the beginning of the paragraph.
L248-250: Please delete the sentence “Waterlogging significantly affected the photosynthetic characteristics and antioxidant capacity of peanut leaves. However, there were significant differences in the response of different varieties to waterlogging” at the beginning of the paragraph.
L252-253: The original content is repeated, changing this to "indicating that waterlogging had a negative impact on yield and yield components" is more appropriate.
L258-263: This paragraph can accurately express the deficiency of correlation analysis and the necessity of principal component analysis, but it is better to use a more concise expression.
L285 and L306: Please change “ranks” to “ranked”.
L287: The use of the word 'worst' is inaccurate.
L320 and L322: Please delete “the” in this line.
L346: “ It shows that the recovery ability of peanut affects peanut yield.” should be changed to “It showed that the recovery ability of peanut affected the final pod yield”.
L363-365: The sentence “Previous studies have shown that the most sensitive growth stage of peanut to waterlogging is the pod filling stage. Waterlogging can lead to peanut rotten pods and finally lead to yield penalty”, please check the grammar and simplify this sentence.
L370-371: “Waterlogging stress can not only damage cell membranes, but also reduce the photosynthetic capacity of plant leaves” should be corrected to “Waterlogging stress damaged cell membranes and reduced the photosynthetic capacity of plant leaves”.
L376: Change “are” to “were” is necessary.
L378: Delete the “antioxidant enzyme”.
L379-381: “And in this study, most of the peanut varieties evaluated showed similar patterns in physiological responses to waterlogging stress, which is consistent with the results of previous studies”, the description of this sentence is abstract, and it is better to delete it.
L386 and L390: Please delete “the” in these lines.
L423-424: Please check the grammar of this sentence and revise it.
L431: Please delete change “are” to “was”.
L432: Please delete “the” in this line.
L454-456: The sentence “Plant stress tolerance is a physiological response affected by many factors and comprehensively manifested by a variety of indicators. Different varieties also have different responses on a single index” is wordy.

In the “Note” of Table 9, the "p" should be in italics.


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: WATERLOGGING TOLERANCE AND RECOVERY CAPABILITY SCREENING IN PEANUT: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF WATERLOGGING EFFECTS ON PHYSIOLOGICAL TRAITS AND YIELD
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript by Zeng et al, have done an interesting study on evaluating the effects of waterlogging on physiological and yield component in peanut. The information presented is clear and the literature cited is relevant.
Experimental design: The experimental design is appropriate, except the authors need to justify the choice of the 15 cultivars. Moreover, how the seeds used for this study was developed wasn't necessary, more so line 100 to line 104.
Validity of the findings: The results as presented is OK.
Additional comments: I do recommend minor corrections


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: WATERLOGGING TOLERANCE AND RECOVERY CAPABILITY SCREENING IN PEANUT: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF WATERLOGGING EFFECTS ON PHYSIOLOGICAL TRAITS AND YIELD
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Dear editor:
The paper entitled “Waterlogging tolerance and recovery capability screening in peanut: a comparative analysis of waterlogging effects on physiological traits and yield (#64480)” evaluated the waterlogging tolerance and recovery capability of different peanut varieties by measuring physiological indexes of peanut leaves after waterlogging and recovery, and established a comprehensive evaluation method of peanut waterlogging tolerance. This paper clearly stated that cultivars with high recovery capability after waterlogging and less pod number reduction should be selected during cultivation. The results and conclusions are well stated, linked to original research questions, which laid a foundation for peanut waterlogging-tolerant varieties breeding.
The revision of the original manuscript generally meets the requirements, and the author has made modifications to the existing grammatical problems. The Discussion section also highlights the research problems and results.
The submission has been greatly improved and is worthy of publication.
Experimental design: No comments.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: EXTRA HIGH SUPEROXIDE DISMUTASE IN HOST TISSUE IS ASSOCIATED WITH IMPROVING BLEACHING RESISTANCE IN “THERMAL ADAPTED” AND DURUSDINIUM TRENCHII-ASSOCIATING CORAL
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Paper title: Extra high superoxide dismutase in host tissue improves bleaching resistance in “thermal adapted” and Durusdinium trenchi-associating coral.

The present manuscript presents interesting results that explains one of the potential tolerance mechanisms of metaorganism to ecological stressors. They have utilized biochemical approach to quantify the ROS protective enzymes and fatty acid composition of thermally adapted corals that might aid them in avoiding bleaching. There were some interesting findings like higher SOD, and catalase activity and higher levels of saturated long-chain fatty acid composition in thermally acclimated and temperature resistant coral P. verweyi. A noteworthy finding in this work is the contribution of the host factors in providing protection from bleaching, as both the higher temperature acclimated corals contained the same thermal resistant algae D. trenchi, but possessing D. trenchi did provide a considerable resistance compared to the thermal sensitive Stylophora pistillata. The authors also attempted to determine the role of bacteria, specifically Endozoicomonas sp., however they could not detect any clear and detectable role of bacteria in providing bacterial bleaching resistance.

There was a clear improvement in the manuscript language and grammar compared to the previous version. The manuscript is also well structured with clearly defined objectives, results and conclusions.  However, I would like to present some points for corrections and some questions that need clarifications + some suggestions.
Experimental design: The experimental design was simple yet elegant, where they compared 2 thermal adapted corals and used a thermal sensitive coral as an additional control. The samples were utilized for estimating physio-chemical and microbiome parameters.
Validity of the findings: Here are some suggestions for minor revision.
•	The authors comment that high SOD and CAT activities were responsible providing protection from bleaching. However, this is a strong statement to make because enough conclusive functional experiments were missing like using SOD or CAT inhibitors or altering the activity of these enzymes in any other way and then checking the effect of temperature on bleaching. Hence I would also suggest to change the title of the paper and modify it to “….in host tissue is associated with improving bleaching resistance in…..”.
•	Continuing with the previous point, the authors did not measure the ROS levels in the thermal acclimated corals. Are ROS levels different in both the thermal acclimated corals and do they increase after providing heat stress and are the levels comparable in both species? Can authors provide some clarifications here?
•	The authors have used Principal Component Analysis (PCA), but they have referred to it as Primary component analysis at multiple places. It needs to be rectified.
•	Fig. 2A represents the PCA plot for the fatty acid composition. Authors mention that fatty acids C20:5 and C22:0 mainly accounted for the observed variation (lines 299-300), however, it is clear from the plot in fig.2A that FA C18:00 is also playing a role in the observed variation. Can authors clarify this point and if it fits, include C18:00 also in the discussion? Please indicate the percent variation of each axis on the plot itself on the respective axes.
•	The authors mention that sample 1 of I. palifera had low reads and hence it was excluded from analysis for MDS plot. However, the same sample is discussed later to be possessing a high abundance of Vibrio compared to other samples of the same treatment group. I would suggest not to make any conclusions or suggestions altogether from this sample or else include it for all the analysis. How reliable is the data from this sample to substantiate the high Vibrio abundance?
•	Authors have used E. montiporae for colonizing I. palifrea but the colonization failed for most colonies. Could it because of the difference between the species of Endozoicomonas existing on the local coral and the one that is under cultivation? Did the authors attempted to cultivate the natively associated Endozoicomonas?
•	There are typos in the following lines: 246, 285, 312 (CA->CAT).
•	Can authors comment, how might long chained saturated fatty acids contribute to provide resistance against bleaching?
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: EXTRA HIGH SUPEROXIDE DISMUTASE IN HOST TISSUE IS ASSOCIATED WITH IMPROVING BLEACHING RESISTANCE IN “THERMAL ADAPTED” AND DURUSDINIUM TRENCHII-ASSOCIATING CORAL
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Wang et al. analyzed two coral genera maintaining the same stress tolerant Symbiodiniaceae species, provided more experimental evidence, further supporting antioxidant enzymes as well as saturated fatty acid contributing to coral heat tolerance. Despite the short experimental period, the whole story is logical and complete. My major concern is about the microbial community analysis part. Large part of sequences in Isopora were unassigned at genus level, it looks unusual to me. Thus, it’d be better to try some other methods for the taxonomy assignment, e.g. RDP, and it may provide more information and different following results. Besides, although I’m also not a native speaker, the writing still needs further improvement. Some parts cause much confusion, such as pre heat, it mostly means heat something beforehand.

Some other comments
Line 217-220 The accession numbers of raw sequence reads as well as analysis code shall be provided here.

Line 272-275 Statistical analysis between the coral species is needed to provide more solid evidence.

Line 318-323 Although the comparisons between coral species have been made like “<10%SOD”, “3x higher”, it’d be better to also provide statistical results here.

Figure 2(A) The labels can be barely read. Needs to find a better way to display/sperate them.

Figure 4 The colors of the symbol cause much confusion. Need to find a better way to display.

Figure 5 Genus name shall be in italic. Besides, according to the statements, it’s Platygyra containing more Endozoicomonas, but in this figure, samples in B (Isopora) appear to have more Endozoicomonas.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: Discussion part: because the experimental period in this study is quite short, and also just gave corals acute heat stress, but in natural environment, we’d rather see gradually increasing temperature, which Isopora with durusdinium trenchii is able to acclimate possibly, not to mention Symbiodiniaceae usually exhibit higher antioxidant enzyme activity than coral hosts. And it’s also possible Isopora can gradually acclimate to the high temperature if the experiment lasts longer. These shall all be considered in the discussion part.
Additional comments: Supporting material
Bacteria classification This excel file is too difficult to read. It looks like a draft to me. Need to label clearly the meanings of these numbers.


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: EXTRA HIGH SUPEROXIDE DISMUTASE IN HOST TISSUE IS ASSOCIATED WITH IMPROVING BLEACHING RESISTANCE IN “THERMAL ADAPTED” AND DURUSDINIUM TRENCHII-ASSOCIATING CORAL
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have addressed some of my comments. But there still remain some unsolved ones.

I still insist authors give RDP another try for taxonomy assignment. To my experience, RDP usually gives less than 10% unclassified sequences for coral microbial samples. While in the present study, some samples got 20-30% unassigned sequences at genus level. The taxonomy assignment will completely affect the following analysis and explanation. And also, RDP is a widely accepted classifier tool.

“Comment: The accession numbers of raw sequence reads as well as analysis code
             shall be provided here (Line 217-220).
Response: Accession number to raw sequence data was added (L232-233).”
The analysis code/script was still not provided here.

“Comment: Line 272-275 Statistical analysis between the coral species is needed
             to provide more solid evidence.
Response: P values were added to show statistically differences between species.”
I don’t find statistical analysis added up here. It’s for the algal density part.

“Comment: Line 318-323 Although the comparisons between coral species have
            been made like “<10%SOD”, “3x higher”, it’d be better to also provide
            statistical results here.
Response: Statistical results were added.”
I’m confused about the analysis here. The p-value represents the significant difference or “10%SOD/3xhigher”? Please clarify.

“Comment: Figure 2(A) The labels can be barely read. Needs to find a better way
             to display/sperate them.
Response: The barely read labels in Figure 2(A) were because these FA were not major components to distinguish Isopora from Platygyra. In order to highlight the difference, we focused on the FA with high eigenvectors.”
I understand some may not be vital components. If so, just remove these uncrucial ones or if you do want to display them, it’s necessary to be presented very clearly.

“Comment: Bacteria classification This excel file is too difficult to read. It looks
like a draft to me. Need to label clearly the meanings of these numbers.
Response: Bacterial classification table has been tidied up.”
The table still needs more improvement. For results from calculation, needs to keep the same digits (e.g. 2/4) after decimal points. After if the numbers represent percentage, the “%” should be added.
Experimental design: NA
Validity of the findings: NA
Additional comments: NA


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

Input:
Title: EXTRA HIGH SUPEROXIDE DISMUTASE IN HOST TISSUE IS ASSOCIATED WITH IMPROVING BLEACHING RESISTANCE IN “THERMAL ADAPTED” AND DURUSDINIUM TRENCHII-ASSOCIATING CORAL
Review round: 4
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have carefully and satisfactorily addressed all the comments from the previous round of review. Just two small comments:
> Please correct the typo in the line 467-468: …might not be able to establish stable…..
> Please provide the scale/co-ordinates of the X and Y axis with labels on the MDS plot of the figure 4.
Experimental design: no comments
Validity of the findings: no comments
Additional comments: Just make the 2 changes mentioned in the 'Basic reporting' section.


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: EXTRA HIGH SUPEROXIDE DISMUTASE IN HOST TISSUE IS ASSOCIATED WITH IMPROVING BLEACHING RESISTANCE IN “THERMAL ADAPTED” AND DURUSDINIUM TRENCHII-ASSOCIATING CORAL
Review round: 4
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors still didn't provide their running scripts (not just accession number) here. But considering the analysis used in the study is common, it's not that a big deal if the codes are missed. Still it'd be better if the authors can provide as supplmentary material during their final check.
Experimental design: NA
Validity of the findings: NA
Additional comments: NA


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

Input:
Title: COMMUNITIES OF T4-LIKE BACTERIOPHAGES ASSOCIATED WITH BACTERIA IN LAKE BAIKAL: DIVERSITY AND BIOGEOGRAPHY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In “Communities of T4-like bacteriophages associated with bacteria in Lake Baikal: diversity and biogeography” Potapov et al sequenced the gp43 gene, representing myophage, across many geographical regimes in Lake Baikal. The authors then compare to gp43 sequences in other environments, finding that Lake Baikal had potentially endemic viruses.

	It would be helpful if the authors include a section about Lake Baikal in the introduction. Where and what is Lake Baikal and why is it interesting? Tell us about it. Have viruses previously been examined in Lake Baikal? Highlight the variety of regimes in Lake Baikal. Write this for people who have very little knowledge of Lake Baikal.
	 The authors need to better explain the goal of their work in the introduction. I think that understanding viruses in Lake Baikal and comparing to other lakes should be the main goal and comparing size fractions is a sub-goal—especially as the authors don’t have a direct comparison. Comparing fractions isn’t actually the most interesting part of this paper. I think the description of Lake Baikal will help the authors express their goals better.
	The authors already have two papers describing the gp43 gene in Lake Baikal. They need to make very clear to the reader what is new in this publication. Yes, the bigger size fraction is new. But the wider geographical sampling is also new. So is comparing across regimes in the lake and then between lakes. I think these Lake Baikal focused questions is probably where the biggest focus on the paper should be.

Please note that gp43 is actually DNA polymerase B.

Detailed comments:
Line 25: “formed a Baikal cluster”
Line 27: “most OTUs had cultivated closest relatives”
Line 36: delete dash
Line 40: “belong to the order”
Line 48: How about citing something about myo-pelagiphage here. (Zhao et al., 2013; Zaragoza-Solas et al., 2020)
Lines 52-59: This section is very long and technical and never comes up again in the discussion. I think it could be deleted or greatly shortened.
Lines 60-61: This sentence is very vague. Be more specific. Viral lysis creates dissolved organic matter that is eaten by other bacteria instead of having cells eaten and their carbon moving up the food chain.
The authors could also mention virally mediated horizontal gene transfer as a reason why viruses are important.
Line 87-88: This sentence is technically true, but quite misleading. Cyanophage can have latent periods up to 8 hours. See table in (Mruwat et al., 2021) for a collection of cyanophage latent periods. Or (Zhao et al., 2013) for a myo-pelagiphage latent period. 20 minutes is much much too fast for environmental phage.
Additionally, the authors can look in (Langenfeld et al., 2021) for issues with typical methods to obtain viromes.

References
Langenfeld, K., Chin, K., Wigginton, K.R., and Duhaime, M.B. (2021) Comparison of ultrafiltration and iron chloride flocculation in the preparation of aquatic viromes from contrasting sample types. PeerJ 9: e11111.
Mruwat, N., Carlson, M.C.G., Goldin, S., Ribalet, F., Kirzner, S., Hulata, Y., et al. (2021) A single-cell polony method reveals low levels of infected Prochlorococcus in oligotrophic waters despite high cyanophage abundances. ISME J 15: 41–54.
Zaragoza-Solas, A., Rodriguez-Valera, F., and López-Pérez, M. (2020) Metagenome Mining Reveals Hidden Genomic Diversity of Pelagimyophages in Aquatic Environments. mSystems 5: e00905-19.
Zhao, Y., Temperton, B., Thrash, J.C., Schwalbach, M.S., Vergin, K.L., Landry, Z.C., et al. (2013) Abundant SAR11 viruses in the ocean. Nature 494: 357–360.
Nishimura, Y., Watai, H., Honda, T., Mihara, T., Omae, K., Roux, S., et al. (2017) Environmental Viral Genomes Shed New Light on Virus-Host Interactions in the Ocean. mSphere 2: e00359-16.
Luo, E., Eppley, J.M., Romano, A.E., Mende, D.R., and DeLong, E.F. (2020) Double-stranded DNA virioplankton dynamics and reproductive strategies in the oligotrophic open ocean water column. ISME J 14: 1304–1315.
Experimental design: The authors need to more clearly express how this research fills identified knowledge gaps.

I think the authors should add myo-pelagiphage sequences from (Zaragoza-Solas et al., 2020) and (Luo et al 2020) to their database. There is now a much larger diversity of pelagiphage known. This addition is likely to increase the viral OTUs identified as pelagiphage. These sequences could also be added to the phylogenetic tree.

In fact there are quite a few complete genome Metagenome Assembled Viruses that could be examined for gp43 and added to the tree. In (Nishimura et al., 2017) they assembled many marine viruses, but also have a table that links some viruses to hosts. The authors don’t have gp43 data from the oligotrophic ocean. These Metagenome Assembled Viruses could help fill that gap. (Install blast on your computer, and blast the assemblies with gp43 to find the appropriate sequences)
Adding in the viruses from (Zaragoza-Solas et al., 2020) is more critical. But adding from Nishimura et al., 2017 could be interesting.
Validity of the findings: Validity of Findings
I think the conclusions of this work could be greatly strengthened.
If the authors can express their goals in the introduction, then indicate how their work filled knowledge gap in the discussion, it will make it easier for them to more strongly state their conclusions.
Make sure to point out the bigger consequences of this work.
What is unique about Lake Baikal that would promote endemic viruses? What other places in the world would you imagine could have similar viruses to Lake Baikal? In other words, where would you sample next to see if the Lake Baikal viruses are actually endemic?
Additional comments: I already have the myo-pelagiphage sequences that I want the authors to add to their database and tree. Here they are. The HOT sequences are from Luo et al 2020 and the PMP sequences are from Zaragoza-Solas et al., 2020.

>Pelagiphage_HOT_VTLG01007445-FGLCGAHL_01252_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MSTFYTNVLQWGNYILLREVVDGERKNTRIKYSPTLFAPVEKPTKFKTLQGGYATPIKFDSIKEAKEWIQMNSSQPDLVY
GNTQYSYCYLSDRYRGLIDWNMDEMLIVTLDIEVQCENGFPHVKQAEEEMLSISIKNHQSKKIIVWGIGEFKTDRDDVTY
IQCESEVHLLKEFLVFWEKYQPDVITGWNTEFFDIPYLCNRIKKVLSEDDLIRLSPWKSVRPRDVYQMGRTHQVYEIQGV
AALDYFELYRKFTYTNQESYRLDHIAFVELGERKDGNPFDTFREWYSNDYQSFIEYNINDVELVDKLEDKMKLIELCLTM
AYDAKVNLTDVLGTVRYWDILIYNYLREKHIVIPQKKEAQKFEKYEGAYVKDPQVGMHKWVMSFDLNSLYPHLIMQYNIS
PETLLPTVNEKVTVDKIIEGKVKNTSDYCLTPNGAFFRKDKRGFLPELMENIYEDRVKFKKLMLDAQQSYENTKDKKLLS
TISRYNNIQMAKKISLNSAYGAIGNNWFRYFDLRNAEAITTSGQLSIRWIEKALNIYLNKILETEGKDYVIASDTDSVYI
TFDELVSKVYPEGARAEKIVTFLDRVAKEKLEPFIDESYKALAKVTNAYEQKMVMGREVIADKAIWTAKKRYILNVHDSE
GVRYKEPKLKMMGIEAVKSSTPAPCRQKIKECLSIIMSGNEKELNTFIQDFREEFMKLSPEEIAYPRSCNGLLKWTADHN
LFKKGAPIHVKGAILYNYLLDKHKLENKLPKIMNGDKIKFINLRTPNLYQSTAFSFITEFPKELDIIQLIDYDTQFEGAF
ISPLKFITDKIRWKIDGSYGDQMNLEDFFA
>Pelagiphage_PMP-MAVG-18-KCKFIKKH_02145_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MNLASSFYTNVVEHKGKLLIRGVNNGQSYLSRINYSPTLYLPTKEESKYKTLDGTNLKAKRFDSISKAKHFYSEYAPIPE
YKIFGMNRYNYQYIADEYKGEMKWNKDYIKIFTLDIETECEGGFPDPDTAKETIICITIKNHSNKQIITWGTGDFISKKT
NVTYVKCQNKKHMLLEFLKFWCKNHPDILTGWNVKFFDMPYLMNRMRYIFDNDTINKMSPWNYVNADRIQLGNKSNQIWN
ILGVSVLDYFDLYKKFTYVRQESYKLNYIAKVELGEQKLDNPYETFKDFYTKDYQRFVEYNIQDVELVDRLEDKMKLIEL
CLTMAYDYKVNYTDVYSQVRCWDTIIYNHLLTKNIQIPPREDQIKDTQYEGAYVKDPQLGLHNWIVSFDLNSLYPHLIMQ
YNISPEMFVGTEPKAVGVENFLDERLNLKWAKDRNVTIAPNGAMFKRDKQGFLPELMEKMYTERVVYKKKAIEAKKEYQK
TKDPIYSNEISRCHNIQMAKKISLNSAYGAIGNQYFRYFDVKQAEAITLGGQLSIRWIERDVNKFMNKLLGTDNKNYVVA
SDTDSIYLKLDTLVEKVCKGKSTKQIVDFLDKAAEEKIQKVIDSSFENLAKYVNAYQQKMIMKREAIANKGIWVAKKRYM
MNVFDEEGVKYDIPKLKIMGVEAVKSSTPEVCRGKIKDAIRVIMNDSEDALIKFVNDFKEVFMTLSPEEVAFPRSCNNLN
KYIDSNSIYKKGTPIHVKGALIYNHNISKHKLGMKYPYIQDGDKIKFLMLKQPNTVKDTVISFSTKIPYEFELHKYVDYD
TQFQKTFTDPLRFILDSIGWKLEREATLESFFE
>Pelagiphage_PMP-MAVG-24-KCKFIKKH_03891_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MNFYTNVGRYGNMLLYRGIENGNRVSRKVKYKPTLYVATSKPTDWKALDGTPVAPVTQFESMRDAKDWISLNKEVSGRKI
YGNNRYISTFINEKFPGDIEFDRNAINVTTIDIEVASDDGFPEPDVASKEVTAICIKNNIDNTYYVWALRDYDVNQSIMQ
TNRVVYKKCDTEGQLLLDFITHWSSPTHCPDVVTGWNSRFFDIPYLVNRINNLLGSDWVKKLSPWGLIDSRDVTIMARKQ
TAYEIAGISQLDYMELFKKFGYSYGAQESYSLNHISHVVLGEKKLSYEEHSSLFSLYLNDHQKFIDYNIKDVELVDRIED
KLGLITLALTMAYRGGVNYGDTFGTTAIWDSIIYRDLSTQKIAVPFQEDKVKTPYPGGYVKDPQVGINDWVVSFDLNSLY
PSLIMQYNMSPETIASGELSDYDVDSILKNHTIVDNRGKAVSANGQYFNIDKKGILPKIIEQMYGERVQIKKAMIKAQKE
LQKVDKNDKQEVYRIERDIAINENRQMSIKILLNSLYGALGNKYFRFFDQRIAEGITLSGQLTIRWAEEAINTYLNKVLK
TNKDYVLAIDTDSVYVCLNDLVKAVNPSNPIDFLDTVCREKLEPVLEEAYKKLYSIMGGIENKMVMGREVIADRGLWTAK
KRYILNVHDNEGVRYAEPKLKIMGIEAIKSSTPAPCREALKEIFKVIMHSSESDVQKSIEHFRQYFRTLEPNDIAFPRGI
TNLTSFQDRNTIYRKGTPIHARGGILYNKLIDDLSLGKRYNKINNGEKIKFIYLRTPNPIKENVISFLDYLPTEFGLNKY
IDHETQFQKTFLDPIEPILDAIGWSSKEVSTLDEFFG
>Pelagiphage_PMP-MAVG-13-KCKFIKKH_02947_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MDFYTNVCRSRDKILVQGYQGNIKKKIAVAYRPKHFILSKRGQTPYKSLDGRPLEVVELNSMGGARKFREKYEGVEGFEI
HGYDRYVYTYISDKFQGDIQWDFNKVKIATLDIECECEDGFPEPMLASEKVNAITIKPFRKEPQVFGIGEWNHNQNLTYH
NCKNEFDLLQKFIKYWRTEWFDIVTGWNVNSFDITYLCNRIDRLMGEDEHKKLSPWGQSNVREFTTMGYQKQQVFDLLGV
NIIDYLEMYRKKTFINQESYKLDHIAHVELGKGKLDYSEYGSLHTLYKQDYAKFLEYNVRDVVLVEELDNKLGFMELVMS
QAYTAKCNYSDTFGMVKYWETIIYNFLKEQGIQTPPQRLKTGNDKNKPIVGAYVKEPLVGGHNWVMSFDLNSLYPHIIMQ
YNISPEKLVKGNRQDVNIDRLLDKKCDLSYCKQTNTAVAPNGVLFSREKQGMFPELMETFYEERKEWKKKMLEYQSERQT
TQDVKRKRELDTLIKRAYNNQQVRKIALNSAYGAMANQYFAFFSIDLAEAITMSGQLIIKWAEKTANTYLNELLKTENED
YVIAMDTDSIYLSMDKFVQKVFPEDTPKTKIIDFLSKAESKIEEALADGFKDLAEYTNAFQQKMEMGREVIADRGIWTAK
KRYILNVHDNEGVRLREPKLKMMGIETAKSSTPQWVRNKLEEALNVVMNKSEQDLWEFVETTRKEFRTLTPEEVAFPRGC
KGLIQYQDSTNIYAKGTPIHVRGSLLYNNLLNKRNLDMRYETIKNGEKVHFTYLTLPNPINENVISFTTSLPREFDLHRF
IDYDMQFDKSFVEPLKNIVQLINWNVEPVASLDSFFG
>Pelagiphage_PMP-MAVG-14-KCKFIKKH_01192_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MRFYTNISQWGNNLLLREVIDGKRVNRKVKYSPTLYCPVMRETNFKTLEGKYVTPIKHQTMRDAKEWVEQYKEQPHLLYG
NTQYQYSFLYENYPNLEWSLDDVLIATIDIEVACENGFPNPQDAIEPLLSITVKNHANKQIFVWGVGMYKTTRPDVAYVN
CENEKELIYEFLKFWQMNQPDVITGWNTEFFDIPYLCNRIKKLCGEDDLKKLSPWKSVSSKNIYSMGRSHQVWDIQGIAA
LDYYDLYRKFTYTNQESYRLDHIAYVELGERKDGNPYDTFKDWYTNDFQSFIDYNITDVEIVDKLEEKMKLIDLCLTMAY
EAKVNYTDVLGSVKYWDILIHNYLMDKGIVVPQKVEREKSEKYEGAYVKDPQTGMHEWVLSFDLNSLYPHLIMQYNISPE
TMKSEQTVPNMSVDKLLDKQIDTSILKNTTMTPNGALFRTDKKGFLPEMMQKMYDDRVRYKKAMLEAKQNLVNTKDKKYE
KQISTFNNIQMAKKIALNSAYGAIGNNWFRYYSHTMAEAITTSGQLSIRWIEKKINSYMNGLLKTKDKDYVIASDTDSVY
ITFDELIKKLNPKYPIDFLDTIAKEKVEPFIDQSYQELANYLHAYEQKMQMKREVIADKGIWTAKKRYILNAYDIEGVRY
KEPTLKIMGIEAVKSSTPAPCREKIKEALKIMMSGDEKELNKFIQNFREEFLTLPPEDIAYPRSVNGLNKWSETHTLFKK
GAPIHVKGGILYNHLVKKNKLTRYYPLIQEGDKIKFLYLKLPNIYQSSSISFITTLPKQLDFKVDYELQFEKSFIEPLNF
IIEKIGWFVDRTYGTQGTLEDFFA
>Pelagiphage_HOT_VTLG01009199-FGLCGAHL_01490_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MYSFYKDVIEYKGNLLVRGIHEGEEFKEKVNFRPTLYAITQNKTNHKTLQGQYLKPITFDSIYKCRDFKRNYTNSSAPLY
GNDRYHFQYIAKNYPSDVQFDKNLIKIFTLDIEVTAEKGFPDVENPIEEILCLTIKNQSNKNIITWGTKPFFTKRPDVTY
IECQSEKQLLMEFFKFWTKNYPDIITGWNTKFFDLPYLCNRIKYLVGDKVINKLSPWGLIEQEQITVRGRSQTAYDIKGI
TMLDYLDLYKKFIPVRQESYKLDYIAKVELGSDGKDSNPYDTFREWYTNDFQSFVDYNIKDVELVDQLEDKLRLIELILT
MAYEAKINYQDVFSEVRLWDTLIYNHLLKENIHLPPRGDNVKEEKYTGAYVKTPQVGQHKWIVSFDINSLYPHLIMQYNI
SPEKMIGVKPQGISVNKMLQQKTPLDYLETEGCTITPNGAMFKTDSQGFLPKLMEKMYNDRVHFKKLEFEAKKEYQKTKD
PMYEKEISRCHNIQWAKKISLNSAYGAIGNQYFRFYNVHQATAITTAGQFIIQYIEQQVNKYMNDILQTKDKVDYIVASD
TDSIYLCLDKLVEKVCKDKTKEQKINFINKVVENKLEPFIDKCFIQLAKYTNAFQQKMVMKRECIADKGIWTAKKRYMLN
VLDEEGFRFEEPKLKIMGIEAVKSSTPEVCRVAIKEAIKIVMNKEETDLHNYIAKFREEYKQYEPEQIAFPRSCNNLRKY
FSPSDIFIKGTPIHIKGSLIYNYHLKNQNLDYKYPLIQEGDKIKFILLKEPNPFKFNVCSYISTLPREFKLKDYVNYDLQ
FEKTFLDPMRFILGAINWSAEPKASLESFFV
>Pelagiphage_HOT_VTLG01003937-FGLCGAHL_00752_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MEFMKFWMKNYPDVITGWNTKFFDLPYLCNRIKLLTDEKVIRKLSPWNIVEQETVEVRGRPQTVYNVVGIAMLDYLDLYT
KYIPTRQESYRLDWIGQVELGEKKDDNPYDTFKEWYTKDLQSFIDYNIQDVEIVDRLEDKLGLIELVLTMAYDAKVNYSD
VFSQVRTWDTLIYNHLLKNKIAVPPREEHSKDTKYIGAYVKDPQVGMHKWVVSFDLNSLYPHLIMQYNISPEKIIGMKGN
GVSVSNLLNKKSDLSYLKKEGACITPNGALFKTDSQGFLANMMETMYKERVKFKQKEIKARQEYEKTKEKSLLKKVSRFH
NIQWSRKIALNSAYGAIGNQFFRYYDVRQATAITTGGQYVIKFIENKMNDYLNHLLKTDDHDYIVASDTDSIYVCLDKLV
EKICGNKSKDQVVEFLNKACEKQFEPYIDKCYKELAEYTNAFDQKMEMAREVIADKGIWVSKKRYMLNVYDSEGVRYAEP
KMKIMGIEAVKSSTPAICRKRIKEAIDIIMKKEEPDLINFVDKFKNEFEGLPPEAIAFPRSCNNLKKYSDASNIFQKSCP
IHVKGSLIYNHYLKQLKLTAKYPLIQEGDKIKFILLKEPNPFKYGVISYLTKLPREFKLQEYIDYTTQFEKTFLDPLRFI
LNSIGWKYERVASLEDFWN
>Pelagiphage_MAVG-MED-4-KCKFIKKH_00402_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MDFYTNVCRSRDKILVQGYQGNIKKKIAVAYRPKHFILSKRGQTPYKSLDGRPLEVVELNSMGGARKFREKYEGVEGFEI
HGYDRYVYTYISDKFQGDIQWDFNKVKIATLDIECECEDGFPEPMLASEKVNAITIKPFRKEPQVFGIGEWNHNQNLTYH
NCKNEFDLLQKFIKYWRTEWFDIVTGWNVNSFDITYLCNRIDRLMGEDEHKKLSPWGQSNVREFTTMGYQKQQVFDLLGV
NIIDYLEMYRKKTFINQESYKLDHIAHVELGKGKLDYSEYGSLHTLYKQDYAKFLEYNVRDVVLVEELDNKLGFMELVMS
QAYTAKCNYSDTFGMVKYWETIIYNFLKEQGIQTPPQRLKTGNDKNKPIVGAYVKEPLVGGHNWVMSFDLNSLYPHIIMQ
YNISPEKLVKGNRQDVNIDRLLDKKCDLSYCKQTNTAVAPNGVLFSREKQGMFPELMETFYEERKEWKKKMLEYQSERQT
TQDVKRKRELDTLIKRAYNNQQVRKIALNSAYGAMANQYFAFFSIDLAEAITMSGQLIIKWAEKTANTYLNELLKTENED
YVIAMDTDSIYLSMDKFVQKVFPEDTPKTKIIDFLSKAESKIEEALADGFKDLAEYTNAFQQKMEMGREVIADRGIWTAK
KRYILNVHDNEGVRLREPKLKMMGIETAKSSTPQWVRNKLEEALNVVMNKSEQDLWEFVETTRKEFRTLTPEEVAFPRGC
KGLIQYQDSTNIYAKGTPIHVRGSLLYNNLLNKRNLDMRYETIKNGEKVHFTYLTLPNPINENVISFTTSLPREFDLHRF
IDYDMQFDKSFVEPLKNIVQLINWNVEPVASLDSFFG
>Pelagiphage_PMP-MAVG-16-KCKFIKKH_03510_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MKFYTNVSQWGNNLLLREVVDGQRINRKVKYTPTLYSPVMRETKFKTLDGKYVTPIKHLSIKDSKEWVEQYKQQPHLIYG
NTQYQYSFLYENYRNLEWSLDDILIATIDIEVKCDNGFPNPQDANDELLSITIKNHANKQIFVWGVGEYKSTRPDVAYVK
CETEKELIFEFLKFWQHNQPDIITGWNTEFFDIPYLCNRINKLFDEQQLKRLSPWGSVQARTIYKMGRNHQVFDIQGIAA
LDYYDLYRKFTYTNQESYRLDHIANVELGENKDGNPYETFSEWYQKDFQSFIDYNIMDVEIVDKLEDKMKLIELCLTMAY
DAKVNYTDVLGSVKYWDILIHNYLMDRNIVIPQKTYSEKSDKYEGAYVKDPQTGMHKWVLSFDLNSLYPHLIMQYNISPE
TMKSEKTVPNMTVDKLLDKKIDTSILKNTTMTPNGALFRTDKKGFLPEMMQTMYDDRVKYKKYMLEAKQNLVNTKDKKYE
KQISTFNNIQMAKKISLNSAYGAIGNNWFRYYSNTMAEAITTSGQLSIRWIEKKINEYMNSILKTEKVDYVLASDTDSVY
ITFDTLIEKVKPKNPVDFLNTIAKEKIEPFIDKSYQELADYLHAYENKMQMKREVIADKGIWTAKKRYILNAWDVEGVRY
KEPTLKIMGIEAVKSSTPAPCRAKIKEALKIMMSGDEKELNTFIQDFRKKFLTLAPEEIAYPRSVNGIGKWSETHTLFKK
GAPIHVKGGILYNHLIKKNNLGNIFPYINEGDKIKFLYLKLPNIYQSSAISFITKLPKQLDFKVDYELQFEKSFIEPLNF
IIEKIHWNVDRTYGTSGSLEDFFS
>Pelagiphage_HOT_VTLG01014405-FGLCGAHL_03109_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MNFYKNVIEHKGKLLIRGVLNGKDYKDKIDFGPTLYALSQQKSEIKNLQGQYLKPITFNDIKSARQFKKDYGAQSPLFGL
ERYHYQYIGKNYPDAIEWSKDHIKIFTLDIETACENGFPDVENPIEELLCITVKNQSNKQIITWGVGDYHTDRPDVTYVK
CRDEKQLLFEFMKFWLKNYPDIITGWNTKFFDLPYLMNRIKLMAGDKVANRMSPWNLINRDEIVVRGRPQTVYQLFGIVM
LDYLDLYKWFIPTRQESYRLDFIGELELGQKKHENPFETFKDFYTKDFQKFVDYNIQDVEIVDALEDKLGLIDLSLTVAY
ESKVNYDDIFSQVRVWDTLIANHLMKKNIAVPPREEHSKETKYEGAYVKEPQLGGHNWIVSFDINSLYPHIIIQYNISPE
KIIGSSSKGVSVNKMLNRTPLDFLKTEGACLTPNGAMFKNDSQGFLPEMMETMYNERVVYKKRMLKAKQQYQRTKSPELV
KEISRCHNIQWARKIALNSAYGAVGNQYFRYYDVRQASGITTAGQFIIRFIEDKMNEYLNKVLQTQGKKDYIVASDTDSI
YVCLDKLVEQTCKDKSDDEIADFIGKVCDKKLEPYIEKCFAELADYSNAFKNAMVMKREVIANKGIWVAKKRYMLNVLDE
EGIRLSKPKLKLMGIEAVKSSTPQVCRGKIKDAIKIIMSKKESDLHDFVAEFKKEFKALPPEAIAFPRSCNNLRKYRDNS
NIFIKGTPIHVKGALIYNYQVKEFGLQNKFPYIQEGDKIKFIKLVEANPFKFDVISYITSLPKEFKLQQYVDYETQFEKT
FLDPMRFILQAIGWEHEPKATLEAFFG
>Pelagiphage_PMP-MAVG-20-KCKFIKKH_04015_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MNSKIGTNFYTNVSTTANDVLVRAVTDVGTRIQERIPFKPHCYITKGTGDTPYKTLDGKPCYRVNFDSMKHARTFFEEFK
TISNFDVHGMLSFTHQYINQAYPEASLDFDYYKIRIYSLDIETTTENGFPDVNNPTESIILLSVQDIHTKKIITWGLKKY
TGERTDVEYRAFPDENAMLDDFIKWWHKNCPDIITGWNVGAFDTVYLYKRIQILLGDYTAKKLSPWSFISSKTVSVRNRQ
TTYIDFEGTSLLDYMSLYKKYTYTNKESYKLVDIAQDELGVTKLDHSEYASFKEFYTKNWNKFVDYNIRDTELITQLEDK
MRLLELIVTFAYKAKVNFTDVYSQVRTWDMIIHNHLIQKNIIIPPKKPIGKSQQFEGAYVKDPILGMHKWVVGFDLTSLY
PHLIMHYNISPETIQNKTYKSGVDHYLNNPAEFQDDETVAVNGSVYTNKIEGMLPNIMNTFYAQRDIAKKKLIEAEKQFQ
TTKDPKLKKVISKYNNEQMAYKIALNSAYGAIGNEHFRYFDIRMAEAITLGGQLAIKWIHNKMNDYVNKILKTENKDYII
AVDTDSIYVNFEKIVEKAFLDVPDRPKIVAFIDKICQDKIIPYINTCYDELAKRHNAKNKMIMKRESISDRAIWTAKKRY
ILSVLDQEGISYSTPKFKIMGLEIVKSSTPMIVRKKLKDALPIILYGNQYELFNFINNYKKEFYNLRPEQIAFPRSCQGI
NEYADSVKIYKLSTPMHTRGALMHNHFVNKMKLAKKIALIRESDKIKFIHLKTPNPLQSTNVIAFLDTLPSEFKVDQYID
YDTMFQKVFLDALKLMTTPLGWKTEETSSLEDFF
>Pelagiphage_PMP-MAVG-1-KCKFIKKH_05279_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MDFYTNVSRFGNNLLYIGYKGGQRIQKRIPFKPTLYVSTPEPKSGWRTLFDEPVDPIEFDSMRDAKDFEKRYQGVDTFNI
YGMNDFVAQFIAQKYPEEIKFNRDDVSVTSFDIEVQSDEGFPEPKYANYPITAITTKNNKENVYRTWGCGDYNPAENVLY
TKCQNEAALLHKFLDYWKQNYPDIVTGWNSISFDMVYVINRLRKIYGEDKVKELSPWGHVNEDKGTDYYGKEAITYEILG
VTQLDYKEIFRKFTYNTLGEQESYTLNNIAHVVLGEGKISYEEQDSLFALYKNDFQKFIEYNIKDVELIDRFEESLGLIT
LTLTMAYRGGVNYRDALGTTKIWDNIIYRMLNKNKVVCPPKEEKSKSSFVGGYVKEPQVGSHEWVVSFDLNSLYPNIIVQ
NNMSPETVVDGLVNTSLEHMLRKQTEIDTAYATAPNGARFKKNRQGVIPFVIQNYYEERVDIKKEMLELKQEYESTPTKS
LSNKISHLDNQQMSIKILMNSLYGALGNRWFRYFDQRVAESVTLGGQLSILWAERTVNKEMNKLLETDDKDYVIAIDTDS
LYINMGELVQKFNPKNPVKFLDEISKTHFEKVLTKSYQELAEYSGAMTNRMEMGREVIADKGIWVAKKRYILNVHNSEGV
QYKEPKLKIMGIEAIKSSTPELVRDNMKKLFKIIVAQTQDDAQHFVSVFKNVFKDSPAEDISFPRGVRHVKKYADRNTIY
GKGTPIHSRGCLLYNHYLRQNNLTIKYEEINNGEKIKYTYLKTPNPINENVISFKNVLPKELNLNKYIDYEKMFEKTFLE
PLEPIFDAVGWSAEPRASLEDFFS
>Pelagiphage_PMP-MAVG-2-KCKFIKKH_04412_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MSRFYTNIIQWGNNLLLREIVNGERINRRVKYSPTMFCPVMRETKYKTLQGKYVMPVKHETIKEAKNWVQQYEDQPHLVY
GNTNFQFSYLYEQYPNLEWNMDEVLIITIDIEVACENGFPNPQEASEELLSITIKNQQNKQIFVWGVGKFKTERKDVVYI
ECDNEYELLTEFIKFWKLNQPDVITGWNTEFFDIPYLCNRIKKIMNEDTLKDLSPWRSVLSKTIYQMGRQYQVYDIQGVA
ALDYYDLYRKFTYTNQESYKLDHIANVELGIKKDENPHDTFRDWYTNDFQSFIDYNIKDVEIVDQLEDKMKLIELCLTMA
YEAKVNYVDVLGSVRYWDVLIHNYLMDKKIVIPQKTNKEKSDKYEGAYVKDPQVGEHKWVVSFDLNSLYPHLIMQYNISP
ETLKSDKTIPNMNVDKLLSKKVDTSILKDTTMTPNGALFRTDKKGFLPEMMQTMYEDRVKYKRAMLDAKQEYEKTKNPKL
LKMISKFDNIQMARKISLNSAYGAIGNNWFRYYNLPIAEAITTSGQLSIRWIEEKLNEYMNELLKTKDVDYVIASDTDSV
YIRFDELVEKFKPKNPVDFLDTIAKEKVEPFINKVYKELADYTKAFEQKMQMKREVIADKGIWTAKKRYILNAHDVEGVR
YKEPKLKIMGIEAVKSSTPAPCRENIKQALRIIMDGDEKELNTFIQNFRKKFLTLAPEDVAYPRGVNGLSKWTESHNLFK
KGAPIHVKGAILYNHLIKKNKLGYKYPLIQEGDKIKFLHMKLPNIYQSSSISFITKLPKEISFAVDYDLQFEKSFIEPLN
YIIEKIKWNVDRSYGTQGTLESFFA
>Pelagiphage_PMP-MAVG-25-KCKFIKKH_01574_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MTNFYKSVIEHKGKLLVRGIHDGKDYKEKIDFGPTLYSITQKDTKFKTLDNRNLNPIKFKNINDARRFRRDVATDNSPIY
GLERFHYQYINDQFPKNIKWEKKFIKIFTMDIETTVTDGFPDVENPTEEIICITVKNQTNKQIITWGTGAYKTDRLDVTY
VQCKTEQHLIMEFMKFWLKNHPDVITGWNTKFFDLPYLMNRIKLIAGEKVATRMSPWNLIEKNEIIVRGRPQTTYTLKGI
VMLDYLDLYRWFIPTRQESYKLDFIGELELGKKKHVNPFETFKDFYEKDFQKFIDYNIQDVEIVDAMEDKLGLIELALTV
AYESKVNYDDIFSQVRVWDTLIANHLLAKNICIPPREEHIKDTKYEGAYVKDPKVGQHKWVVSFDINSLYPHIIIQYNIS
PEKIIGQDPSGISVNKMLKRKIDLSYLKNENACVTPNGAKFKNDSQGFLPEMMETMYNERVVYKKRMLTAKKLYQKNKDP
ELLKEISRCHNIQWARKIALNSAYGAVGNQYFRFYDVRQASAITTTGQFIIRYIEEKVNDYMNKILKTEFDYIVASDTDS
IYVTMDKLVEKTCPGKTNEQICNFIDKVVDSRIEPYIKKCFNELSEYSNAFKNCMVMKREIIANKGIWVAKKRYMLNVLD
DEGVRLADPKLKIMGIEAVKSSTPQVCRGKIKEAIQIIMNKDELTLQKFIADFKKEFLEMVPEQISFPRSCNNISKYRNP
ATIFSKGTPIHVKGSLIYNHKLKEMKLHKKYPYIKEGDKIKFLKLIQANPFRFDVISYITTLPYEFNLKKYIDYETQFEK
TFLDPMRFILQSIGWSQEKKANLEAFFG
>Pelagiphage_PMP-MAVG-15-KCKFIKKH_04586_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MNSKIGTNFYTNVSTTANDVLVRAVTDVGTRIQERIPFKPHCYITKGTGDTPYKTLDGKPCYRVNFDSMKHARTFFEEFK
TISNFDVHGMLSFTHQYINQAYPEASLDFDYYKIRIYSLDIETTTENGFPDVNNPTESIILLSVQDIHTKKIITWGLKKY
TGERTDVEYRAFPDENAMLDDFIKWWHKNCPDIITGWNVGAFDTVYLYKRIQILLGDYTAKKLSPWSFISSKTVSVRNRQ
TTYIDFEGTSLLDYMSLYKKYTYTNKESYKLVDIAQDELGVTKLDHSEYASFKEFYTKNWNKFVDYNIRDTELITQLEDK
MRLLELIVTFAYKAKVNFTDVYSQVRTWDMIIHNHLIQKNIIIPPKKPIGKSQQFEGAYVKDPILGMHKWVVGFDLTSLY
PHLIMHYNISPETIQNKTYKSGVDHYLNNPAEFQDDETVAVNGSVYTNKIEGMLPNIMNTFYAQRDIAKKKLIEAEKQFQ
TTKDPKLKKVISKYNNEQMAYKIALNSAYGAIGNEHFRYFDIRMAEAITLGGQLAIKWIHNKMNDYVNKILKTENKDYII
AVDTDSIYVNFEKIVEKAFLDVPDRAKIVAFIDKICQDKIIPYINTCYDELAKRHNAKNKMIMKRESISDRAIWTAKKRY
ILSVLDQEGISYSTPKFKIMGLEIVKSSTPMIVRKKLKDALPIILYGNQYELFNFINNYKKEFYSLRPEQIAFPRSCQGI
NEYADSVKIYKLSTPMHTRGALMHNHFVNKMKLAKKIALIRESDKIKFIHLKTPNPLQSTNVIAFLDTLPSEFKVDQYID
YDTMFQKVFLDALKLIITPLGWKTEETSSLENFF
>Pelagiphage_PMP-MAVG-23-KCKFIKKH_05126_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MDFYTNVARTRDKILVTGYQGNKKQKLQVSYRPKHFIPSKKGETPYKSLDGRYLEVVELNSMGGARKFREKYDGVEGFEI
HGYDKYLYTYISDRFQGDVDWDFNKIRIATLDIECECENGFPEPMLASEKVNAISIKPFKKETVVFGIGPWEHNKTDVIY
VDCTNEFDLLTKFIKYWRTSNFDVITGWNVNSFDITYLCNRIDRIIGEGEHKKLSPWNQTNVREFTTMGYQKQQVYDLVG
INVLDYLEIYRKKTFVNQESYRLEHIAQVELGKGKLDYSEYGSLHTLYKQDYAKFLEYNVRDVVLVEELDDKLGFMELVM
SQAYTAKCNYEDTFGTVKYWETIIYNFLKDQGIQTPPQRLKSGNDKMKPIVGAYVKEPQVGGHDWVMSFDLNSLYPHIIM
QYNISPEKLVRGHREDVNVDRLLNKECDLSYCKQTNTTVAPNGVLFSRDKQGMFPELMETFYEERKEWKGKMIEYQKELQ
TCDDPKRKKELDTLIKRAFNNQMVRKIALNSAYGAMANQYFAFFSIDLAEAITTSGQMIIKWSEKTINEYLNKILKTDNE
DYVIAMDTDSVYITMDKFVNQIMPDAPKDKVIDFLTKVEVEIEKVLAQGFDELAEYTNAFQQKMQMGREVIADKGIWTAK
KRYILNVYDNEGVRLAKPKLKMMGIETAKSSTPQWVRNKLTEALNVVMTQTEQDLWEFVETARKEFRNLPPEEVAFPRGC
KGLAQYSDPNSIYAKGTPIHVRGSLLYNNLLTSKNLDMRYEMIKNSDKVHFTYLTLPNPINENVISFTTSLPREFDLHRF
IDYDMQFDKSFTEPLKNIVNLINWNVEPVASLDSFFA
>Pelagiphage_PMP-MAVG-26-KCKFIKKH_02308_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MSRFYTNIIQWGNNLLLREIVNGERINRRVKYSPTMFCPVMRETKYKTLQGKYVMPVKHETIKEAKNWVQQYEDQPHLVY
GNTNFQFSYLYEQYPNLEWNMDEVLIITIDIEVACENGFPNPQEASEELLSITIKNQQNKQIFVWGVGKFKTERKDVVYI
ECDNEYELLTEFIKFWKLNQPDVITGWNTEFFDIPYLCNRIKKIMNEDTLKDLSPWRSVLSKTIYQMGRQYQVYDIQGVA
ALDYYDLYRKFTYTNQESYKLDHIANVELGIKKDENPHDTFRDWYTNDFQSFIDYNIKDVEIVDQLEDKMKLIELCLTMA
YEAKVNYVDVLGSVRYWDVLIHNYLMDKKIVIPQKTNKEKSDKYEGAYVKDPQVGEHKWVVSFDLNSLYPHLIMQYNISP
ETLKSDKTIPNMNVDKLLSKKVDTSILKDTTMTPNGALFRTDKKGFLPEMMQTMYEDRVKYKRAMLDAKQEYEKTKNPKL
LKMISKFDNIQMARKISLNSAYGAIGNNWFRYYNLPIAEAITTSGQLSIRWIEEKLNEYMNELLKTKDVDYVIASDTDSV
YIRFDELVEKFKPKNPVDFLDTIAKEKVEPFINKVYKELADYTKAFEQKMQMKREVIADKGIWTAKKRYILNAHDVEGVR
YKEPKLKIMGIEAVKSSTPAPCRENIKQALRIIMDGDEKELNTFIQNFRKKFLTLAPEDVAYPRGVNGLSKWTESHNLFK
KGAPIHVKGAILYNHLIKKNKLGYKYPLIQEGDKIKFLHMKLPNIYQSSSISFITKLPKEISFAVDYDLQFEKSFIEPLN
YIIEKIKWNVDRSYGTQGTLESFFA
>Pelagiphage_HOT_VTLG01002142-FGLCGAHL_00174_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MINFYKSVIEHKGKLLVRGIHDGKDYKEKIDFGPTLYSITQKNTKFKTLDNRNLNPIKFKNINDARRFRRDVATDNSPIY
GLERFHYQYINDQFPKNIKWDKKFIKIFTMDIETTVTDGFPDVENPIEEIICITVKNQTNKQVITWGTGEYKTDRLDVTY
VKCKTEQHLIMEFMKFWLKNHPDVITGWNTKFFDLPYLMNRIKLIAGEKVATRMSPWNLIEKNEIIVRGRPQTTYTLKGI
VMLDYLDCYRWFIPTRQESYKLDFIGELELGKKKHVNPFETFKDFYEKDFQKFIDYNIQDVEIVDALEDKLGLIELALTV
AYESKVNYDDIFSQVRVWDTLIANHLLAKNICIPPREEHIKDTKYEGAYVKDPKVGQHKWVVSFDINSLYPHIIIQYNIS
PEKIIGQDPSGISVNKMLKRKIDLSYLKKENACVTPNGAKFKNDSQGFLPEMMETMYNERVVYKKRMLTAKKLYQKNKDP
ELLKEISRCHNIQWARKIALNSAYGAVGNQYFRFYDVRQASAITTTGQFIIRYIEEKVNDYMNKILESEYDYIVASDTDS
IYVTMDKLVEKTCQGKTNEQICNFIDKVVDSRVEPYIKKCFNELSEYSNAFKNCMVMKREIIANKGIWVAKKRYMLNVLD
DEGVRLADPKLKIMGIEAVKSSTPQVCRGKIKEAIQIIMNKDEPTLQKFIADFKKEFLEMAPEQISFPRSCNNIGKYRNP
ATIFSKGTPIHVKGSLIYNHKLKEMKLHKKYPYIKEGDKIKFLKLIQANPFRFDVISYITTLPFEFDLKKYIDYETQFEK
TFLDPMRFILQSIGWSQEKKATLEAFFG
>Pelagiphage_HOT_VTLG01012685-FGLCGAHL_02542_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MNFYTYARHYGNDILFRGVKDGKRFTARRGFQPTLFVKSQEKSKYKSIFGENVSPMKFPTNKEATAFFDSYKDVDNFPIF
GQNYYAYQYITENYPGEIQWDANKMAIYSIDIETTSEGGFPNVDSPSEKVLVITLQNNNTKKITTFGLGEFTPTKETSHL
DIDYHGFDTEEQLLENFLTWWQENCPDIITGWNSNLFDMPYLITRVQRVLGEDEHKRFSPFKLINKRPIRFANREMTAFE
ITGVAQLDYLDLYKKFTYVTRESYKLDFIAETELGKNKLESGFDTFKEFYDGDWNRFVEYNIIDTVIVDELEDKMKLIEL
AITMAYDAKCNYNDVFSAVRTWDSLLYNHLWEKDIVIHQGGGRKDRQIEGAFVQEPVPGSYEWVASFDATSLYPSILMQH
NMSPETIVPGFKYDVSVDDQLDRYQLDKLKEKNYTMAGNGSCYTREKKGLFPEIVQKFFNDRLKYKKLMQKAQKDFQETG
ALHHKNEISKYNNFQMARKIQLNSLYGALANQYFRFYDDRIAEGITMSGQLVIRDTAKALDKYMNKVCGTEDEMYSFYSD
TDSCYVTCKNLVDNFFPDKDVDKVVGLLDKIGTEKIEPAIAQAMTKLGNYTNAFEHKIDFKREVIADKGVFVAKKRYALN
VLDDEGLRLKDPKLKVMGLEIVRSSTPAPIRDSLKEAVRLILTSDEEHLQKYIAEAQKHFNTLTAEDIAFPRGCNNLKKY
TSTADVYQKGTPIHVRGSLLYNKLLKDKSLNLKYENIQEGDKIKFLYLKEPNSLHENTIAFVTKLPKEFEITKYVDYDLI
FQKAFIDPLENILKPIGWNTEPQATLEDLFR
>Pelagiphage_PMP-MAVG-8-KCKFIKKH_03717_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MKFYTSIQQFNNVILERYIEDGVHKQREVPYQPTLFVPTVKQSPFKTITGEVVEPRGFNSIKEARDFIQARDKVSNDPVY
GMQQFAYAYINEEYPTRDFDFSQLNIFNFDIETRSDEGFPNIQTANMDILSIAVRCNGQSYILGCQEYKTSGEDIYIKCA
SEADLLHKFIQLWKDLDPDIVTGWNIETFDIPYVCNRIERVLSKEAVNELSPFKLVRDRFFGRPSEGEQPEAKEIYGVTI
FDYLSLYRKFTYIQQESYALDYIGEAELGEKKLDYSEYGTLNELYKNDYQKFLDYNIRDVVLVEKLDDKMKLLEQACTIA
YDAGVNLIDSLTSVRMWDVIIHNFLMEKNIVVPPKQFGEKENQVEGAYVKDPQVGLHNWVVSFDLNSLYPHLIMQYNISP
ETYVRHIGQRPTADEIIAGLFDNENIKEFMKKHNVSVCGSGAMYTKDFQGFLPKLMETMYNDRVKWKTRMIEAQKKYQKN
KTKELEYEIAKCNNMQMAKKIQLNSAYGALGNQYFRFFDTKYAESITLSGQLSIKWMEVKINQFLNKKLKTEKVDYVVAV
DTDSLYVVLDTLVGQSGIDTNDTNKVINFLDKVASEVLEPFIDKGYRELANYVGAYEQKMVMKREAIADKGIWTGKKHYI
LNVYDNEGVRYQEPKLKMMGIESVRSSTPGVVRKAIKEALDVLMKDGEMALREYVNDFEKLFNAMPYEDVAFPRGCRYMR
KWSDASDIYKKGTPIHVRGALLYNKVVKEKKLDRKYNEIHEGDKIKFCYMKLPNPMRENVFAVPTVLPPELGMENYIDYE
KQFEKSFKDPLNHICEAVGWSIDKQATLDQFFV
>Pelagiphage_PMP-MAVG-3-KCKFIKKH_03317_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MSKFYTNIIQWGNNLLLREIVNGERINRRVKYSPTMFCPVMRETKYKTLQGKYVMPVKHETIKEAKNWIQQYEDQPHLVY
GNTSFQFNYLYEQYPNLEWNMDEVLIITIDIEVACENGFPNVNEASEQMLSITIKNQQNKQIFVWGVGKFKTERKDVVYI
ECDNEYELLTEFLKFWKVNQPDVITGWNTEFFDIPYLCNRIKKIMGEETLKDLSPWRSVISKTIYQMGRQHQVYEIQGVA
ALDYYDLYRKFTYTNQESYKLDHIAKVELGIRKDENPHDTFRDWYTNDFQSFIDYNIKDVEIVDQLEDKMKLIELCLTMA
YEAKVNYVDVLGTVRYWDMLIHNYLMDKKIVIPQKTNKEKSDKYEGAYVKDPQVGEHKWVVSFDLNSLYPHLIMQYNISP
ETLKSERTVPNMNVDKMLNKSVDTSILENTTMTPNGALFRTDKKGFLPEMMQTMYEDRVKYKRAMLDAKQEYEKTKNPKL
LKMISKFDNIQMARKISLNSAYGAIGNNWFRYYNLPMAEAITTSGQLSIRWIEHKLNEYLNSLNQTKDIDYVVASDTDSV
YIRFDELVEKFKPKNPVDFLDTIAKDKVEPFINQSYQELADYTHAYDQKMQMKREVIADKGIWTAKKRYILNAHDVEGVR
YQEPKLKIMGIEAVKSSTPAPCREKIKQALRIIMDGDEKELNTFIQDFRKEFLTLPPEDVAYPRSVNGLSKWTESHNLFK
KGAPIHCKGAILYNHLIKKNKLGYKYPLIQEGDKIKFLHMKMPNVYQSSSISFITKLPKEISFAVDYDLQFEKSFVEPLN
YIIEKIKWNVDRSYGTQGTLEDFFA
>Pelagiphage_MAVG-MED-5-KCKFIKKH_00727_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MNFYKSVIEHKGKLLVRGIHDGKDYKEKIDFGPTLYSLTKNQSKFKTLDNRNLNPIKFKNINDARRFRRDIATQNSPIYG
LERFHYQYINEQFPNKIDWDKKYIKIFTIDIETTCEDGFPDVENPIEELLCITVKNQTNKQILTWGTGDYHTDRTDVTYV
KCKSENHLLMEFMKFWLKNYPDVITGWNTKFFDLPYLMNRIKLVANEKVANKMSPWNMIEKNEIMVRGRPQTTYTLKGIV
MLDYLDCYRWFIPTRQESYKLDYIGEIELGKNKNENPYDTFKDFYTKDFQKFIDYNIQDVEIVDALEDKLGLIELALTVA
YESKVNYDDIFSQVRVWDTLIANHLLAKNICIPPREEHDKDTKYEGAYVKDPTVGQHKWVCSFDINSLYPHIIIQYNISP
EKIIGHDGSGISVNKMLKGSIDLSHLKNEHACITPNGAKFKNDSQGFLPEMMETMYNERVIYKKRMIKAKKEYQKTPTPE
LQREIARCHNIQWARKIALNSAYGAVGNQYFRFYDVRQASGITTAGQFIIRFIEEKVNGYMNKILQTEHDYIVASDTDSI
YVTLDKLVEQTCKGKDNEQICNFIDRVVNSRLEPYIEKCFSELAEYSNAFKNCMVMKREVIANKGIWVAKKRYMLNVLDD
EGVRLSEPKLKIMGIEAVKSSTPQVCRTKIKEAIKIIMNKDEETLQNYIAEFKKEFDELPPEAIAFPRSCNNIHKYKNPA
TIFSKGTPIHVKGSLIYNHKLREMKLQNKYPYIQEGDKIKFIKLIEANPFRFDVISYITTLPQEFDLLKYIDRETQFEKT
FLDPMRFILQSIGWSQEKKASLEAFFG
>Pelagiphage_PMP-MAVG-7-KCKFIKKH_05606_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MHFYTNVYQHRNLILVREFKDGEYIQKQVQYKPTFYVPTNKDSSFRSIKGKNLEPKKFSSIAQARQFREKWKGVEGFDIH
GIERHPYAYIAEYFPQEIEWMMRHIRIMNLDIECECEDGFPEPTEAAEEINAITYKFFGQDTKYVFGTQAWEHNDPTIKY
FHCRNEKQLLKTFLEEYKKNYPDIITGWNVDQFDITYLYNRINKLFGSTIADQLSPWNITTVREWDTFNKKQQAYTLTGI
EVVDYLQLYQKFTFKRRDSYKLENICQIELGKGKINYEEFGAMHLFYKKDYQKFLEYNVRDVTLVEELEDKLGLMGLLLA
MSYSAKCNYLDAFRQVRYWDILIFNRLKQQNIIVPPSRTGQPKKQKFMGAYVKEPQVGMHEWVVSFDLNSLYPHLIMQYN
ISPETSVESSDVTLSIDKMLNKEIDIQSHYATTPNGARFSKRKQGFLPEILENLYDERVLWKNKMIEYQKEFESTDDPKR
KQELNRQIAIAYNNQMVRKISLNSAYGAIGNEWFRYFELSLAEAVTSSGQLAIKWVEKAVNMYLNTILDTEDDYVVAIDT
DSIYVRFDELIKKVNPKNPIDFLDQVAKGKMQDVINKCYEDLADYTNAYQNKMVMGREVIADKAIWTAKKRYILNVHDNE
GVRLHEPKLKMMGIETAKSSTPAWVRDKLEDALKVVMKGDEKLVHEFVDNARKEFKGLEPNDIAFPRRVNGINEYENAVT
IYKKSTPMHVRASLLYNHYLGKKDIGMKYENISSGEHMKFLYLKIPNPIKENVIGFINTLPREFELHPYIDYDLQFDKSF
IEPLKLILEKIGWSTEPVSSLEDFFS
>Pelagiphage_PMP-MAVG-9-KCKFIKKH_01365_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MNFYTNVTRYGNMILYRGYENGKKVSHKIKYAPTLFVSSPKGEWTSLNGVKCAPIKFDSMRDAKGWVDENKQVAGRKIFG
NTRYISSFINEYFPGVIKFDRNLINVTTIDIEVASDDGFPEPEEASKEITAICLKNNIDNTYYVFGVGDYDVSQALMKTN
RVVYIKCLNEAMLLQKFLEHWATPSNTPDVITGWNSRFFDIPYLVNRINRLMPGEEKKLSPWGMVDERIINSFQRKQQTY
EIGGIEHLDYLELFKKFGYSYGPQESYSLNHISHVVLGEKKLSYEEHGDLFSLYKFDYQKFIDYNIKDVELVDRIEDKTG
LITLAMTIGYKGGVNYGDTFGTTAIWDTIIYRDLYANKIAIPFAEDKMKTPYPGGYVKEPIVGLHRNVVSFDLNSLYPSL
IMQYNMSPETIATGETAPLNVDMILNNPSVVDNRGKAVAANGQYFNINKLGVLPKIINDLYTERVDIKQSMLKAQRELQK
ADKNDKQDIYRIERDITINENRQMAIKILLNSLYGALGNKYFRFFDQRIAEGITLSGQLTIRWAEQAVNGYLNRLLNSST
NNNPKDYVIAIDTDSVYVSLDDLVQKFKPTNTTDFLDAVCKDKIEPVLKESYARMFDILGGIENKMVMGREVIADVGIWT
AKKRYILNVQDNEGVRYAEPKLKIMGIEAIKSSTPMPCRDALKAIFKEIVSGSESQVQTSIDQFKTYFKSLPPDQIAFPR
GISKISAYKDNQLIYKKGTPIHARGGLLYNKLLTDLSLQKKYQQIGNGEKIKFVYLKTPNAIKENVISFPEYLPEEFGLL
RYIDYDLQFQKTFLDAIDPILDAIGWSSKEIATLNDFFA
>Pelagiphage_PMP-MAVG-12-KCKFIKKH_05754_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MEFYKSVIEHRGKILVRGVLDGKEYNERLNFKPKLYVLSQEESTWKDLKGRNLKEINFDSIHKAREFKKSYATSNSPIYG
LDRYQYQYISDNFPGEVEWNKDHIKIFTIDIETTCEDGFPDVENPQEKLLVITVKNQTNKHIITWGVGDFKTDRTDVTYI
KCKTEKHLIMEFMKFWIKNYPDVITGWNCKFFDLPYLVNRIKLLTDEKVIKKLSPWNIVEEQKVEVRGREQTVYTLFGIS
NLDYLDLYTRYIPQRQESYKLNFIGNVELGTGKDDNPYETFKDWYTKDFQSFVDYNIQDVEIVDGLEDKLGLIELLLTMA
YDARVNYLDIFSQIRVWDTYIYNHLKDRGIQIPPKEHHTKDEKYVGAYVKDPIVGMHKWVVSFDLNSLYPHLIMQYNISP
EKYVGQDSTGVSVSNMLKKKVDTAFLKEKGITMTPNGARFKTDSQGFLPKMMEDMYNDRKKFKRLELQASQQYENDKTKT
ELKKTISRYHNIQWSKKIALNSAYGAIGNQYFRYYDVAQASAITTSGQYVIKWIENKMNDYLTKVIGEEGDYIVASDTDS
IYVTLDKLVEKICKDKSKEQIVKILDKICTEKFEPYIDKCYAELADYSNAFQQKMEMAREVIADKGIWVAKKRYMLNVHN
SEGVQYAKPKLKIMGIEAIKSSTPEICRTRIKEAITIIMEKDETDLQKFIADFRQEFAGLEPEQVAFPRSCNNLRKYADS
SNIFQKSCPIHVKGALIYNHYLREMKLTRKYPEIQEGDKIKFILMKEPNPFKHGVISYITTLPKEFDVHRFIDYDTQFEK
TFLDPMRFILEAINWKAEKVASLEDFF
>Pelagiphage_MAVG-MED-2-KCKFIKKH_00224_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MYAQTQDETNHKTLQGNNLKPITFESISKAREFKRSYATSNSPLYGNDRWHFQYISKEYPKQIEFDKSLIKIFTIDIETT
AEGGFPDVENPTEEIICLTIKNQSNKQIITWGTKPFLVKQDNVTYVECANEKQLLMEFFKFWMKNYPDVITGWNTKFFDI
PYLCNRTKRLVGDKVINKLSPWGLIEEEKLTVRGRQQTIFKITGISNLDYLDLYIKFIPTRQESYKLDYIAKVELGGDGK
DNNPYETFREWYKNDFQSFVEYNIKDVELVDKLEDKLRLIELIMTMAYEAKVNYTDVFSEVRLWDTLIYNHLLKDNVHIP
PRTDNIKEEKYVGAYVKTPQVGQHKWIVSFDINSLYPHLIMQYNISPEKMIGVKPNGISVDKLLKHATPLTHLQTQGATI
TPNGAMFKTDSQGFLPKIMEGMYNDRVHYKQLEFQAKKEFQKTKDPIYEKEISRCHNIQWAKKISLNSAYGAIGNQYFRF
YNVNQASAITTAGQFIIQYVEQQVNKYVNDILQTKDKIDYIVASDTDSIYLCLDKLVDKFCKDKTKEQKLNFVDKVAKGK
IEPFIEKCFEEVAGYTNAFQQKMVMKREVIADKGIWTAKKRYMLNVLDEEGFRFEEPKLKIMGIEAVKSSTPEVCRVAIK
EAIRLIMNKDEDALHNYISDFKEIYKKYEPEQIAFPRSCNNLRKYSSSSDIFIKGTPIHIKGSLIYNWHLKNQNLDQRYP
LIQEGDKIKFILLKEPNPFKFNVCAYLSTLPREFKLQDYIDYEVQFEKTFLDPMRFILGAIGWHAEPQASLEAFFG
>Pelagiphage_PMP-MAVG-6-KCKFIKKH_03139_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MHFYTNVYQHRNLILVREFKDGEYIQKQVQYKPTFYVPTNKDSSFRSIKGKNLEPKKFSSIAQARQFREKWKGVEGFDIH
GIERHPYAYIAEYFPQEIEWMMRHIRIMNLDIECECEDGFPEPTEAAEEINAITYKFFGQDTKYVFGTQAWEHNDPTIKY
FHCRNEKQLLKTFLEEYKKNYPDIITGWNVDQFDITYLYNRINKLFGSTIADQLSPWNITTVREWDTFNKKQQAYTLTGI
EVVDYLQLYQKFTFKRRDSYKLENICQIELGKGKINYEEFGAMHLFYKKDYQKFLEYNVRDVTLVEELEDKLGLMGLLLA
MSYSAKCNYLDAFRQVRYWDILIFNRLKQQNIIVPPSRTGQPKKQKFMGAYVKEPQVGMHEWVVSFDLNSLYPHLIMQYN
ISPETSVESSDVTLSIDKMLNKEIDIQSHYATTPNGARFSKRKQGFLPEILENLYDERVLWKNKMIEYQKEFESTDDPKR
KQELNRQIAIAYNNQMVRKISLNSAYGAIGNEWFRYFELSLAEAVTSSGQLAIKWVEKAVNMYLNTILDTEDDYVVAIDT
DSIYVRFDELIKKVNPKNPIDFLDQVAKGKMQDVINKCYEDLADYTNAYQNKMVMGREVIADKAIWTAKKRYILNVHDNE
GVRLHEPKLKMMGIETAKSSTPAWVRDKLEDALKVVMKGDEKLVHEFVDNARKEFKGLEPNDIAFPRRVNGINEYENAVT
IYKKSTPMHVRASLLYNHYLGKKDIGMKYENISSGEHMKFLYLKIPNPIKENVIGFINTLPREFELHPYIDYDLQFDKSF
IEPLKLILEKIGWSTEPVSSLEDFFS
>Pelagiphage_HOT_VTLG01010903-FGLCGAHL_01896_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MTEFFTNVERYKNDILYIGYKNGKRVQQRIPFRPTLYLPTKNSTNLAGLDGRPIAPRDFRSMGDCNAFIKQNGEISNFLM
YGLSNFPEQYIAQRFPDGCEDTFDRDVLNVTFIDIEVESDDGFPQPELAEKAVTAICVKNNIDNIYHVFGCGNYTEHRDD
VKYHKADGEKNLLKEFLTFWVSNPPDILSGWNSHYFDIPYLVNRISKVLGYEWNEHLSPWGLPPDQRSFGNNDMNFEIPG
IQSLDYLPLFKKLGYTYGTQESYKLDNIANVVLGEKKMDYSEYGSLFSLYKEDFQKFIEYNVKDVELVQRMEDKLQLLTL
CLTLGYKANVCAGTSMGSVKIWDCYIYNVLKRINIIIPFVPRRDSDRSIEGAYVKEPIVGMHDWVVSFDLNSLYPSIIRQ
YNMSPETIIDGVIDNVSVNTVVANEPFTVPDGQILCATGQTFNANQKGIFPAIVEKLYNERVKIKQKTLALKSEAQKVKG
VERAKIMHEVASLDNNQMAIKIMLNSLYGAMSNKWFRYYDNRIAEGITITGQATIRWGENAINNYLNKVLKTENKDYVIA
IDTDSLYVNFGGLVDHVYDGLADHTVITDFLDKVSKEKIEPLLENAYIDLQKKMNCPTNIMEMARECIASRAVWTGKKRY
VMNVYDNEGVRYTEPQIKVTGLESVRSSTPQVCRKMIEETMSLILRENEKAVQDFILSARNEFQTLPAEDVAFPRGVNNV
KQYSSRNEIYKKSTPMHVRAAILYNKMIQDRKLTKKYELIGDGDKMKFIYMKKPNPNQENVLAFPDILPPEFEFEKYVDY
ETQFLKAYLEPINSILDAVGWSSEERSTLEDFFS
>Pelagiphage_PMP-MAVG-19-KCKFIKKH_04955_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MINFYTNILQWGNQLFLREVVNGKRQVRKVKYQPTLYTPCEKVSGFKTLTGKNAAPIKFDNIKDAKEWQKSYENQKSLVL
GLNQYPYTYLSEEYPNDVNWDLDQILIYTIDIEVKCENGFPNPQEAAEPFLSITLKNHSNKQIIVWGVGKYTNSRDDVTY
IECESEIHLLKEFLIFWENSPPDIITGWNTEFFDIPYLCNRMKNLFGEDELKRLSPWRMVQDKEVFRNGRNHQLYDIRGV
AHLDYLDLYHKFTYTSQESYALTHIAYVELGQKKDTNPYETFSEWYTKDFQSFIDYNILDVELVDRIEDKMRLIELCLTM
AYEAKVNYMDVLGSVKYWDVLIYNYLKKKNIVIPQKRHSEKAEKFEGAYVKDPIVGEHKWIMSFDLNSLYPHLMMQYNIS
PETLKSLDTVKGMKVDKLLNKEVDTSIFKDTTMTPNGALFRTDTKGFLPELMENMYNDRVVFKKKMLQAKQEYEDTKEPK
LLKKISKYDNIQMARKIALNSAYGAIGNQYFRYYSLAMAEAVTTSGQLSIRWIENKINSYMNNLLKTDNQDYVVASDTDS
IYVTFGSLVEKFNPSSPIDFLDSIAKDKIEPYISSCYEELATYMKAYQQKMEMSREVIADKGIWTAKKRYILNVWDNEGV
RYQEPKLKIMGIEAVKSSTPEPCRNKIKEGLKIIMSGDEKMLNKFIRDFREEFMNMPAEMIAYPRSVNGLTKWSDPSSLF
AKGAPIHCKGAILYNHLLKQKKLVNKYPYIQEGDKIKFLHLRIPNAHQSSSISFITKMPDEFGLQSMIDYEQQFEKSFVE
PLNFIVSKLKWTVDRTYGQQGNLMDFL
>Pelagiphage_PMP-MAVG-4-KCKFIKKH_02721_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MNFYKNVIEHKGKLLVRGVRDSKEFKERINFSPTLYSVSQHQEEFKSLQGHNLRPITFSSIDAARRFKRDVATKNAPVYG
LDRFHYQYINEKYTKQVKWSKELIKIFTLDIECTCENGFPEVNTPVEELLCITVKNQSNKQIITWGVGEFKTLRTDVTYI
KCTDERHLIMEFMKFWLKNYPDVITGWNTKFFDLPYLMNRIQLVAGAKVASRMSPWNLIHKEEIIIRGRPNTYYSLFGIA
MLDYLDLYKWFIPVRQESYRLSFIGETELGETKVENPYPTFKDFYTKDFQKFVEYNIQDVEIVDGLEDKLGLIDLSLTFA
YETKVNYNDIFSQVRVWDTLIANHLMTKKICVPPREDHIKDTKYEGAYVKEPRLGMQKWVVSFDINSLYPHIIVQYNISP
EKILGVKPSGVSVNKMLSKKTPLDYLKTEGACITPNGAMFKRDSQGFLPEMIEKIYKDRVIYKKRELKAQREYQKNPTNE
LKKEIARCHNVQWARKIALNSCYGAIGNQYFRYYDIAQASAVTTAGQFIIRFVEQKVNEYLNQILQTHNEIDYVLASDTD
SIYVSFDKLVEKTCKDKTDQQVCDFLAKVCDNKLEPFIAKQFEDIADYTNAFKNAMVMAREVIANKGIWVAKKRYMLNVL
DEEDVRLSEPKLKIMGVEAIKSSTPQVCRGKIKEAIKIIMSKEQSDLHTFIAGFKKEFMSMSAEQISFPRSCNNMRKYAS
SKDVFIKGTPIHVKGSLIYNHQIKEFGLQNKYPYIQEGDKIKFIKLLQANPFKFDVISYITKLPKEFNLQEYIDYEVQFE
KTFLDPMRFILNSIGWEHEKKASLEAFLG
>Pelagiphage_PMP-MAVG-10-KCKFIKKH_01766_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MKFYTSINRFGNELLYRGYNNGRPEKYRVRFEPTLYLESKQETNYKSIFGQNLFPKSFDTMRDANDFAKMYKEVKDINVY
GTTNYIHQFIAERYPNDIEFNIDDINIVNFDIEVASDDGFPEPKDAAHPIISITLKSSKTNIYYVWGLGEYDADKTEIEL
YGNVIKYEHCASEKELIAKFLHHWVNDYPDVITGWNSRFFDIPYLVNRICVISSESLMKKLSPWNQVNEKVIKIRSFNNK
VLQTYDIVGVQQSDYLELFRKFGYSYGTQESYRLDHIGYVVLGERKLSYDEHGSLHTLYKEDHQKFIDYNIKDVQLVERI
DKKMGLISLALTMAYKGGINLQDTMGTTVIWESIIYRRLLKKGIISPVEQVEQIPYHVVGNPDLVLDDAKSIAGGHVKTP
ETGFHDWVVSFDLNSLYPNIIVQQNISPETIAAARFPQGTNYYLNDHNREKQVSDKYAVCSSGISYRKDKQGIIPELIVD
YYAERTVIKREMLKLQSEYEKTKDSNLEFEINQLENNQMSVKILLNSLYGAMANKYFKYFDNALAESVTLTGQTVIQWAE
KAINISLNKLLKTDNVDYVIAIDTDSVYINMSGIVEKFKPTNPVEFLDKISNEVIEKILKKAFDEFYFVTNGYTPRMEMA
REVIADKGVWTAKKRYILNVHNSEGVQYAEPKLKIMGIEAIKSSTPEVVRDKFKEVFKIIMTQTESDVQNFIANFKQEFK
SLSPEQVSFPRGAQNIGKWKDSTTIYAKATPIHVRGALLYNHHVKENNLIKKYETIKDGEKVKFCYLKTPNRIKENVIAF
PNNLPRELGLHEYIDYDTQYEKAFVDPLRLILEAIGWRTEAVSSLDDFFA
>Pelagiphage_HOT_VTLG01016107-FGLCGAHL_03422_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MKLFGDDTIHVIGTDDFDFKTDNPNVKYYKCKHELELLKTFMNVWKELDPDIITGWNVETFDIAYLINRIWKLFNWDTVT
ELSPHKLITSREWFYMGQKKMISYNISGIAVLDYLQMYKKFTYITRETYRLDHIAEVELGKKKIDYSEFGAMHLFYRNDY
QKFLEYNIRDTELVEELDDKLKLMDLVITMAYSAKCNFDDVFGSVRYWDLLIYNFLKKKGMVPPPKKGSQDSRIIGAYVK
EPQIGQHKWVMSFDLNSLYPHLIMQYNMSPDTYLLHKFNQEISVKQLLEGEVDITSLTNTTVTPNGAMFNIDRQGFLPEL
LEEMYDERVLFKNKMIQHLKELENTPKEDTVTRKKLEYSITAENNNQLARKISLNSCYGALGNQYFRYFNRDIAEGITTA
GQLSIKWVEKAVNDYINKLLETDDDYVVAIDTDSIYVSFENLIDKVNPKNPVEFLDTIAKDKLEPMINDSYEELASYMNA
YQNKMVMGREVIADKGIWTAKKRYILNVHDSEGVRYKTPKLKLMGIETAKSSTPMWCRKKLEQGIRVVMNETESDVWEFI
TDAWNEYKTLPIEEISFPRGVQNVTNYYNSASIYKKGTPIHVRGSLLYNNYLHKYNIDKKYPVITNGEKIKFCYLKVPNV
INENVISFVNTLPKEFELESFIDYDLQFNKSFVEPLGVILDKIGWTTEPVSNLDNFFG
>Pelagiphage_PMP-MAVG-21-KCKFIKKH_02510_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MNFYKNVIEHRGKLLIRGIHEGKEYKNKIDYSPTLYAKTQDDTGFKTLQNENLKPIKFDSISKAREFKKTYNTGSSPLFG
MDRYQYQYIADEYPETMKFDKDLIKIFTVDIECTAENGFPDIENAIEELLAITVKNQSNKQIITWGTGDFKTDRSDVTYI
KCKSEKSLIMEFMKFWTKNYPDVITGWNTKFFDIPYLFNRIKNLVDEKVLKKFSPWNLVEKETVVLRGRPQTHYNIFGIA
MLDYLDLYQKFIPTKQESYKLDYIGKVELGLQKDENPYDTFSDWYKKDYQSFIDYNIKDVEIVDRLEDKLKLIELVLTMA
YEAKVNYADVFSQVRMWDMLIYNYLKKDNIQIPPRENYTKDDKYEGAYVKDPITGMHNWIVSFDINSLYPHLIMQYNISP
EKIIGVKSDGISVDRLLDHATPLDHLKAEGACITPNGAMFKIDSPGFLPKLMESMYNDRVKFKTLSFQAKQEYQKTKDKS
LLKEISRCHNIQWAKKIALNSAYGAIGNQYFRYYDVRQATAITSAGQFVIRWIEKNVNEYMNTILKTEEKVDYIVASDTD
SIYLCLDKLVEKVCKDKSKSETLKFLNKVVESRIEPFIDKKFEELAEYTNAIKQKMVMKREVIADKGIWTAKKRYMLNVL
DEEGITFEEPKLKIMGIEAVKSSTPEVCRGKIKEAIKLIMTKGEDELQAFVAEFKKEFYQMTAEQISFPRSCNNLKKYKH
SSNIFIKGTPIHVKGALIYNENLKRFKLHRKYPLIQEGDKIKFLKLKEANPFKFDVISYVTKLPSEFTLQEYIDYDIMFQ
KTFLDPMSFILNSIGWTYEKTASLEDFFV
>Pelagiphage_HOT_VTLG01010876-FGLCGAHL_01633_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MAPLFNYEKGNMNDFYTNIQVIGDEMLVRAIVDGKKEKYREEFYPTLFCPTKNPTKFRTLDGKVIDKIQPGTISECRNEV
RKWKNSYNINLYGSTDWVCQYIGKEFDQCKYDLSKVRVMNIDIECGSESGFPTVREAKEKLIAITFKDSETGKFVTLGCG
NYVNTRDDVFYVKCADEVSLIRRFIEIYQTIEPDVITGWNTKWFDLPYLIRRINNVLGESESKFLSPWGLVKEKIDKWMG
REHIVYHISGVSQLDYFLLYKKFTYVNQSRYTLDHIADVELGEGKLSYKEHGNLHNLYKEDYQKFIDYNLKDVELVDKLD
EKLKLIDLTCTMAYDAGTNFEDVLGQTRYWDAFIYHHLRRKNIVIPPKREVEKKEREYEGAYVKDPLVGLHDWVVSFDLN
SLYPHLIMQYNISPETFLKDVPRFFVDVDELMKGKTSLPEEPDACMAGNGYFFSTKEKGFLPELMEEMYNDRVKYKDLMF
DAIKAGDKDKIAQYNTIQMAKKISLNSAYGAIGSEYFRYYDLRQAEAITKSGQLAIRWIERKMNDYLNNILETEDEDYVI
ASDTDSIYVTLGSLIEKVMPDASTDKIVDFIDTICNDKIEPYIDKSFEELAEYMKSYRQKMIMKREVIAEKGIWTSKKRY
VLNVWDNEGVRNEEPKIKIMGIEAVRSSTPQSCRDKILESMKIILNGDEDELIEYIEAFKKNFKDLPTEDISFPRTVSGL
KKYFDSVHGYIKGTPIQVKGSLIYNQILNDKNLSMDYQTIKEGEKIKYTYLKEPNPTRDRVIAFVDTLPEEFGLDKYIDY
DLQFEKSYIDPIKTVTNVIGWNHERISTLEGFFG
>Pelagiphage_PMP-MAVG-5-KCKFIKKH_04249_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MHFYTNVYQHRNLILVREFKDGEYIQKQVQYKPTFYVPTNKDSSFRSIKGKNLEPKKFSSIAQARQFREKWKGVEGFDIH
GIERHPYAYIAEYFPQDIEWMMRHIRIMNLDIECECENGFPEPTEAAEEINAITYKFFGQDTKYVFGTQAWEHNDPTIKY
FHCRNEKQLLKTFLEEYKKNYPDIITGWNVDQFDITYLYNRINKLFGSTIADQLSPWNITTVREWDTFNKKQQAYTLTGI
EVVDYLQLYQKFTFKRRDSYKLENISQIELGKGKINYEEFGAMHLFYKKDYQKFLEYNVRDVTLVEELEDKLGLMGLLLA
MSYSAKCNYLDAFRQVRYWDILIFNRLKQQNIIVPPSRTGQPKKQKFMGAYVKEPQVGMHEWVVSFDLNSLYPHLIMQYN
ISPETSVESSDVTLSIDKMLNKEIDIQSHYATTPNGARFSKRKQGFLPEILENLYDERVLWKNKMIEYQKEFESTDDPKR
KQELNRQIAIAYNNQMVRKISLNSAYGAIGNEWFRYFELSLAEAVTSSGQLAIKWVEKAVNMYLNTILDTEDDYVVAIDT
DSIYVRFDELIKKVNPKNPVDFLDQVANGKMQEVINKCYEDLADYTNAYQNKMNMGREVIADKGIWTAKKRYILNVHDNE
GVRLHEPKLKMMGIETAKSSTPAWVRDKLEDALKVVMKGDEKLVHKFVEDARTEFKGLESNEIAFPRRVNNVFEYENAVS
IYKKGTPMHVRASLMFNHLVKQKGLDMQFEPISSGENIKFLYLKIPNPIKENVIGFINTLPREFELHPYIDYDLQFDKSF
IEPLKLILEKIGWSTEPQSSLEDFFS
>Pelagiphage_HOT_VTLG01012672-FGLCGAHL_01996_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MYQNIYFDNRKQKVHLWDDKKGYLIIPYKKYAYVKNSNGQHVSLYGDRVKKVFNYDKEDPTLHESDVPPTTRFLVDQYTD
SDEVSEGHRKIFFDIEVEVTDGFPDVMKANNVITSIALYDFLTEKYYTYVFDAKKRLQSYTKDNQFVEVYDTEYEMLNKF
FQKYLEIKPTILSGWNSDYFDIPYLYNRAVNVLGVSVANLLSPISQVFYNEFKKRYVIAGVSCLDYLSLYRKFSFSQQSS
YRLDYIGEVEVGMKKVSYEGTLNDLYENDLQTFIDYNIRDVKILVELDKKLNLIEISRGIAHLGHIPYEEVFMSSRYLEG
AILVYLKKLGIVAPNKPPRPKKFLDDKFAGAYVQSPQAGKHDWVYDLDITSMYPSVIRSLNISPETKLGKVEGWDAEEFL
KKGLTKTYTMNNNKEKEIGKFTNGELENYLITNKISIASNGVMYRTDKQGLIPALLTKWFNERVEMRKLVKKYNEEGNKE
LEDYFDRRQYIQKIILNSLYGVLGLSVFRFYDLDNAEATTLTGQALIKFSKKITNHFYNKELGDNDDYVIYIDTDSIFAS
AIPLIKKRFPKDKLSEAMMTQRILEVCGEVQDYLNQSYNYFAKKFLNLDEHVFDIKQEVIAKSGLFITKKRYGLRIINDA
GRKVNKIHVKGLDTVRSNFAVAMKDLLSKVLEDILANVPKEKIDERISIFKRNMNSLHFDVMANPIGVKGIGKYEVKVED
SAFSVYKKGTPVHVKSAINYNSLLDYWYEGRKYEKITNGSKIKWVYLKNNEFGFDTIGYKGYEDPPQILDLIKTHIDHER
MFQQAMSKKIGMFYKAMKWEKVVDNRKSIERFF
>Pelagiphage_HOT_VTLG01012686-FGLCGAHL_02738_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MNFYKDVIEHRGNLLVRGIHEGKEFKEKINFKPTLFSITHEDSPHKNLQGQNLKPITFNSIPKAREFKRNYQNSNSALYG
NERYHFQYIAEEYPGDIQYDKNLIKIFTLDIEVTAEKGFPDVENPIEEILCLTIKNQSNKNIITWGTKPYFSKRADVTYI
ECQNEKQLLMEFFKFWTKNYPDIITGWNTKFFDLPYLCNRIKLLVGDKVINKLSPWGLIDSEQITVRGQTQTAYDIKGIT
MLDYLDIYKKFIPVRQESYKLDYIAKVELGSNGKDANPYDTFREWYTNDFQSFVDYNIKDVEIVDELEDKLKLIELVLTM
AYEAKINYQDVFSEVRLWDTLIYNHLLKDNIQIPPRIEQAKDEKYVGAYVKSPQVGQHKWIVSFDINSLYPHLIMQYNIS
PEKMVGVNPEGISVNNMIKKKVELNYLKDKGCTITPNGAMFKIDNQGFLPKIMEKMYNDRVEFKKLEFEAKKNYQKTKDP
IYAKETSRCHNIQWAKKISLNSAYGAIGNQYFRYYNVNQATAITTSGQFIIQYIEKKVNEYMNNILKTKQDYIVASDTDS
IYLRLDELVNKVCKDKTKEQTINFINRVVDSRIEPFIEKCFNELADYTNAIGQKMVMKREVIADKGIWTAKKRYMLNVLD
EEGFRYEEPKLKIMGIEAVKSSTPEVCRVAIKEAIRLIMNKEESDLQNFIANFKKKFTDFEPEQIAFPRSCNNLRKYYSA
STIFIKGTPIHIKGSLIYNYHLKDKRLDHKYPSIQEGDKIKFVLLKEPNPFKFNVCSYLATLPREFELKEYIDYELQFEK
TFLDPMRFILGAIGWNAEPKASLEAFF
>Pelagiphage_Med-Io7-70mDCM-C14-KCKFIKKH_00895_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MSYYTNVKAVGNNIFLRYIDDEGNRKNTKEKYTPTLFVPTKEQSKYKTMHGKPVKPIQLDSLNAARGFIEKYKDISNYKI
YGNDNFAFTFVGDEYPDEIEYDINKLVIANIDIEVASDEGFPNVDLAGSPVISIAIKFNDDFYVFGFNEPDDCPIEDTLA
KKQVKYVSCENEIDLLTRFIECWELHCPDIITGWNVGGFDIPYLYNRIIRLFDEKTVKRLSPWKYVSSRKFRSAYGQEQT
KIDISGISVLDYIELYKKFTYVNRESYRLDYIANVELGERKLSYSEFGSLHTLYKRDYHKFIEYNVKDVELVDRLESKMK
LIEMAIALAYSAKVNFMDVFSQVRMWDSICYHHLRKKNIVIPPRQVGDKTSKFEGAYVKEPQVGIHNWVVSFDLNSLYPH
LMMQYNLSPETLVASESVSKDLVSSLAFDGYNKIISKDFDTSLLVRDNLTVAPNRVFFRKNTQGFLPEILNDLYNKRKSS
KKKMLECQQKAERSSGEERRQYLNLISKHNNDQLARKVQLNSAYGATGNQYFRFYDLRIAEAVTKAGQLSIRWIESKMNK
YLNKLLETTDEDFVVASDTDSIYLSLDKLVTNSFGANLKEIEAEQVVDFLDKVCSKKIEPYIDECYQELADYMNAYAQKM
VMKREVIASRGLWTAKKRYVLNVYNNEGVSYSTPKLKVMGLEAVKSSTPEVCRDKIREALSIIMTKTEDDIIEFVESFKE
EFNTLPAEDIAFPRGVNGVLKYSDSGTYIKGTPIHVKGSIIYNNLIREKGLGLNYQRITDGDKVKFLYLVKPNPIRESVI
SIVNNLPEELGVTKYIDYEKQFVKAFLDPIKVMLDCVGWKAEKTSTLERFFV
>Pelagiphage_PMP-MAVG-11-KCKFIKKH_05426_DNA-directed_DNA_polymerase
MHFYTNVYQHRNLILVREFKDGEYIQKQVQYKPTFYVPTNKDSSFRSVKGQNLEPKKFNSIAQARQFREKWKDVEGFDVH
GIERHPYAYIAEYFPQDIEWMMRHVRVMNLDIECECENGFPEPTEAAEEINAISFKMFGKDTKYVFGTQAWEHNDPTIKY
FHCQNEKQLLKTFLEEYKKIYPDIITGWNVDQFDITYLYNRISKLFSTTIADQLSPWNITTVREWDTFGKKQQAYTLTGV
EVVDYLQLYQKFTFKRRDSYKLENISQIELGKGKINYEEFGAMHLFYKKDYQKFLEYNVRDVTLVEELDDKLGLMGLLIQ
MAYTAKCNYLDAFRQVRYWDILIFNRLKQQNIIVPPARGGAPKKQKFMGAYVKDPQVGMHEWVMSFDLNSLYPHLIMQYN
ISPETFSGMTSDTSNVDMMLNKEVRTNTLFAQTPNGAKFSKRKQGFLPEILENLYDERVLWKNKMIEHQKEFESTDDPRR
KQDLNREIAIAYNNQMVRKISLNSAYGAIGNEWFRYFEIGLAEAVTSSGQLAIKWVEHAVNKYLNTILGTEDDYVVAIDT
DSIYVRFDELVKSVQPKNPIEFLDQVGNGKMQEVINKCYEELAEYTSAYQNKMVMGREVIADKGIWTAKKRYILNVYDNE
GVRLTKPKLKMMGIETAKSSTPQWVRERLEDALKVVMKGDEKLVHEFVDNARKEFKELDPYDIAFPRRVNNLIEYENAVS
IYKKGTPMHVRASLMFNHLIVQKGLDMQFEPIQSGENIRFLYLKVPNPIKENVVGFINTLPREFNLHSYIDYDLQFDKSF
IEPLKLILEKIGWSTEPQSSLEDFFN


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: COMMUNITIES OF T4-LIKE BACTERIOPHAGES ASSOCIATED WITH BACTERIA IN LAKE BAIKAL: DIVERSITY AND BIOGEOGRAPHY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This is an interesting paper, which further describes the diversity of T4-phages in Lake Baikal and describes these phages in comparison with previous studies across the globe.

The English is throughout good, but there are some minor issues (for example line 36, 113, 383) that would be improved if a colleague that is proficient in English read the manuscript. Also, the logic of the order of paragraphs in introduction, results and discussion could be improved to increase the readability of the manuscript.

The introduction does contain relevant information and puts the work in a broader field, the aims are however misguiding. While the manuscript briefly touches upon differing diversity between fractions, it is very brief and most of the paper discusses diversity and biogeography. The aims should be rewritten to correctly reflect this.

Figures are fine and raw data are supplied appropriately.

The authors sometimes refer to previous papers as if the reader should just have read them, it would be easier to follow with some more explanations of what has previously been conducted and what is of importance for this study.
Experimental design: This research does fit within the scope of the journal, but the identified research gap is not fully explored. The authors aim at describing the diversity in a fraction larger than 0.2/0.4 µm compared to the smaller fraction, but limit their own samples to the larger fraction and compare their result to previous results. Due to the large variation and diversity of viruses and their communities, this approach is limited since the communities might have shifted due to time and not fractions. However, they do not find any obvious differences, but they also limit their study to PCR results from a marker gene - which might not be the best way to capture full diversity. The other aims of the study are not as novel, to describe the diversity and put it in context, but are more well explored and still interesting.

The methods, especially with regards to statistical processing, should be further described to enable replication of the study.
Validity of the findings: The study and its findings are mostly descriptive, and the statistics that are used are not fully described, which should be expanded for full understanding. The study does provide further information about diversity of phages in the environment, which is relevant for future research, especially concerning freshwater habitats. However, due to the above mentioned issues with the aims of the study, the conclusions are not as well stated and linked to the research question as could be wished for.
Additional comments: Further comments are within the annotated pdf.