Next Article in Journal
Neutralizing Antibodies Limit Cell-Associated Spread of Human Cytomegalovirus in Epithelial Cells and Fibroblasts
Previous Article in Journal
Chikungunya Virus’ High Genomic Plasticity Enables Rapid Adaptation to Restrictive A549 Cells
Previous Article in Special Issue
Viability, Stability and Biocontrol Activity in Planta of Specific Ralstonia solanacearum Bacteriophages after Their Conservation Prior to Commercialization and Use
 
 
Communication
Peer-Review Record

A Novel Freshwater Cyanophage, Mae-Yong924-1, Reveals a New Family

Viruses 2022, 14(2), 283; https://doi.org/10.3390/v14020283
by Minhua Qian 1,†, Dengfeng Li 1,*,†, Wei Lin 1,2, Lingting Pan 1, Wencai Liu 1, Qin Zhou 1, Ruqian Cai 1, Fei Wang 1, Junquan Zhu 1 and Yigang Tong 2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Viruses 2022, 14(2), 283; https://doi.org/10.3390/v14020283
Submission received: 16 December 2021 / Revised: 25 January 2022 / Accepted: 26 January 2022 / Published: 28 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Bacteriophage-Based Biocontrol in Agriculture)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript of Qian M. et al. describes the isolation and charterization of a novel cyanobacterial phage which represent a new class of bacteriophages. The methodology and implementation were appropriate and the standard of communication is also good. The publication is worth to the attention of the scientific community.

Special comments

Line 65: represent

Line 87: exponential phase is better (however, it used to be not properly use in many places)

Table 1: Families

Figure 4: A rooted tree with an outgroup would be more appropriate.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting manuscript describing the isolation and characterization of a new cyanobacteria-infecting bacteriophage with potential as biocontrol agent for cyanobacterial blooms. Most significantly the phage’s genome appears to not have any resemblance with other known Caudovirales phages and therefore might represent a new taxonomic clade/family. The results are overall presented in a clear manner and the conclusions are valid. I have only a few remarks; after those are answered and the manuscript changed accordingly I recommend publication.

 

Line 12: “specifically infecting”…

Line 18: taxon names need to be italicized

Line 22: “were predicted functions” – check grammar

Line 24: “may reveal”

There are numerous grammatical mistakes throughout the remainder of the manuscript. Please have it proofread by a native speaker. Please also make sure to italicize taxonomic names throughout the manuscript.

Line 31: “edible risks” – please rephrase

Line 105: “12th day”?

Figure 1: I don’t see the “broomstick” tail on this picture. Is there one where this feature is better visible?

To estimate the suitability of the phage as a biocontrol agent, it would be interesting to see if the bacteria become phage-resistant over time. Have you performed any such experiment?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop