Whole genome sequences of marine bacteria presenting the ability to promote the growth of the diatom Phaeodactylum tricornutum
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
2. Abstract We describe the whole genome sequences of seven diverse marine bacteria isolated from Portuguese environments that presented the ability of promoting the growth of the model diatom, Phaeodactylum tricornutum. The bacterial genome sequences will contribute for the study of genetic and molecular mechanisms involved in diatom-bacteria interactions.
Article activity feed
-
Dear Francisco X Nascimento, Thank you for your submission, following review of the changes, I'm happy to accept the manuscript for publication. Thank you for your time and effort and please consider ACMI again in the future. Best wishes, John.
-
-
-
Thank you for your submission. Currently i have selected major revisions on your manuscript. This reflects reviewers 1's concerns around the potential for repeat lab work. If the data presented does reflect a n=1 experiment, repeats are necessary. Minimum i would like the number of repeats made clear in each figure/legend and the appropriate methods section to be explicitly clear to readers. Otherwise, please view respond to any other review comments. Best wishes, John.
-
Comments to Author
In this submission the authors present genome sequencing, and co-cultivation data for 7 marine microorganisms that promote the growth of Phaeodactylum tricornutum. The authors provide sufficient methodological data herein for both experimental sections. NCBI bioprojects are provided for each organism with raw data in the form of sequencing reads, genome assemblies, a brief additional overview of the assemblies, and the geographical sources of the organisms. This seems like an appropriate amount of work for a "genome announcement" with the impact of the work evident in the value of these isolates for co-culturing diatoms with industrial potential, and the improved understanding of their environmental interactions.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Good
Pl…
Comments to Author
In this submission the authors present genome sequencing, and co-cultivation data for 7 marine microorganisms that promote the growth of Phaeodactylum tricornutum. The authors provide sufficient methodological data herein for both experimental sections. NCBI bioprojects are provided for each organism with raw data in the form of sequencing reads, genome assemblies, a brief additional overview of the assemblies, and the geographical sources of the organisms. This seems like an appropriate amount of work for a "genome announcement" with the impact of the work evident in the value of these isolates for co-culturing diatoms with industrial potential, and the improved understanding of their environmental interactions.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Good
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
Comments to Author
This was an interesting and methodologically sound piece of work. I've detailed some minor errors & disagreements with data presentation below that I would like to see corrected before acceptance. I also would like clarification on the algal growth-promotion experimental methodology. Good job to all authors. 1. Lines 21- 32 & 39 - 45 are essentially repeating the same information. I would delete one of the sections, however leave that to the authors' and editor's discretion which to delete. 2. The Saggitula isolate is listed on NCBI as Saggitula sp. NFXS13, not Saggitula marina sp. NFXS13 - I'm not sure how the authors identified it as that species, but could they either provide information supporting the species identification or amend it to just the Genus-strain name in the manuscript. 3. Line 73 …
Comments to Author
This was an interesting and methodologically sound piece of work. I've detailed some minor errors & disagreements with data presentation below that I would like to see corrected before acceptance. I also would like clarification on the algal growth-promotion experimental methodology. Good job to all authors. 1. Lines 21- 32 & 39 - 45 are essentially repeating the same information. I would delete one of the sections, however leave that to the authors' and editor's discretion which to delete. 2. The Saggitula isolate is listed on NCBI as Saggitula sp. NFXS13, not Saggitula marina sp. NFXS13 - I'm not sure how the authors identified it as that species, but could they either provide information supporting the species identification or amend it to just the Genus-strain name in the manuscript. 3. Line 73 - was only one biological replicate performed per treatment condition? Whilst the data presented here show an effect, I think the experiment should be repeated at least once to show that the observed effect is reproducible. 4. Line 102 - in Table one, Contig number; (N50) should be split into two separate columns. 5. Line 110 - in Figure one, please change to "* represent statistically significant changes when compared to axenic P. tricornutum cultivation". Were there any differences between strains? 6. Throughout the references, please ensure strain names are italicised correctly.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Satisfactory
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Good
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
No: No animal or human experimentation performed
-