High-quality genome sequence of five Antarctic actinomycetes: Micromonospora ureilytica DSM 120150, Nocardiopsis akebiae DSM 120151, Streptomyces fildesensis DSM 41987T, Streptomyces hypolithicus DSM 41950T and Streptomyces albidoflavus DSM 120149
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Micromonospora ureilytica DSM 120150, Nocardiopsis akebiae DSM 120151, Streptomyces fildesensis DSM 41987 T , Streptomyces hypolithicus DSM 41950 T and Streptomyces albidoflavus DSM 120149 are five Antarctic strains. Here, we present the high-quality genome sequences of DSM 120150, DSM 120151, DSM 41987 T , DSM 41950 T and DSM 120149 with sizes of 7.51 Mbp, 6.90 Mbp, 8.91 Mbp, 6.01 Mbp and 6.85 Mbp, respectively.
Article activity feed
-
This is a study that would be of interest to the field and community.
-
-
-
This is a study that would be of interest to the field and community. The reviewers have highlighted major concerns with the work presented. Please ensure that you address their comments.
-
Comments to Author
Please use the following comments to help revise and improve the manuscript. Major points 1. Appropriateness of the term "complete genome sequence" The genomes were assembled into 1-3 contigs, indicating high contiguity; however, no short-read polishing or HiFi reads were used. As information supporting base-level accuracy is lacking, the term "complete genome sequence" may be misleading. Descriptions such as "high-quality" or "high-contiguity genome sequences" would be more appropriate. 2. Insufficient reporting of genome quality and annotation assessment Although CheckM was used to assess genome completeness and contamination, no quantitative scores are reported. At minimum, completeness and contamination values for each strain should be provided. 3. Weak positioning and research rationale in the …
Comments to Author
Please use the following comments to help revise and improve the manuscript. Major points 1. Appropriateness of the term "complete genome sequence" The genomes were assembled into 1-3 contigs, indicating high contiguity; however, no short-read polishing or HiFi reads were used. As information supporting base-level accuracy is lacking, the term "complete genome sequence" may be misleading. Descriptions such as "high-quality" or "high-contiguity genome sequences" would be more appropriate. 2. Insufficient reporting of genome quality and annotation assessment Although CheckM was used to assess genome completeness and contamination, no quantitative scores are reported. At minimum, completeness and contamination values for each strain should be provided. 3. Weak positioning and research rationale in the Introduction The manuscript does not clearly define its novelty in the context of existing Antarctic actinomycete genome studies, nor does it sufficiently explain the rationale for analyzing five strains simultaneously. The research objectives should be clarified. 4. Overinterpretation of secondary metabolite potential The conclusion that the strains have high secondary metabolite potential is based solely on BGC counts. BGC class composition or comparison with previously reported strains is lacking, and additional supporting analysis is needed. Minor points 1. Inconsistent notation of DSM strain numbers The formatting of the superscript "T" is inconsistent and should be standardized. 2. G+C content formatting Decimal commas are used in Table 1; these should be replaced with decimal points. 3. Redundant summary statement A summary sentence near the end of the manuscript largely repeats information from the Abstract and should be shortened or removed.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
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
The authors report the genome data of five actinomycete strains isolated from Antarctica. The manuscript fell within the scope of the journal, and the data are presented thoroughly. However, some minor points must be revised before publication: Line 28: five Antarctic strains. Line 77: Please delete NZ_ Line 77: Please check the strain numbers. The accession numbers CP196338 and CP196194 belong to the Micromonospora ureilytica strain DB10_83 and Nocardiopsis sp. M1B1, respectively. Line 78: Please check the strain number. The accession number CP196343 belongs to Streptomyces albidoflavus strain DB7_152. Line 115: The dDDH value is very close to the threshold of 70%. The strain may represent a novel species or, at the very least, a novel subspecies of Nocardiopsis akebiae. The authors could provide …
Comments to Author
The authors report the genome data of five actinomycete strains isolated from Antarctica. The manuscript fell within the scope of the journal, and the data are presented thoroughly. However, some minor points must be revised before publication: Line 28: five Antarctic strains. Line 77: Please delete NZ_ Line 77: Please check the strain numbers. The accession numbers CP196338 and CP196194 belong to the Micromonospora ureilytica strain DB10_83 and Nocardiopsis sp. M1B1, respectively. Line 78: Please check the strain number. The accession number CP196343 belongs to Streptomyces albidoflavus strain DB7_152. Line 115: The dDDH value is very close to the threshold of 70%. The strain may represent a novel species or, at the very least, a novel subspecies of Nocardiopsis akebiae. The authors could provide further basis for the taxonomic assignment of strain DSM 120151.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
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
-