Mussels Repair Shell Damage despite Limitations Imposed by Ocean Acidification
, Michael J. O’Donnell 1,2,†, Michael Concodello 3 and Emily Carrington 1,2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review of George et al. Mussels repair shell damage despite limitations imposed by ocean acidification
This is a very interesting piece of work and deserves to be published.
Although repaired gastropod holes are interesting and important on the shores looked at, the ms could be further advanced by showing the relevance to any kind of repair. Read Vermeij (1983) Traces and trends in predation, with special reference to bivalved animals. Palaeontology, 26: 455-465. Damage is critical for any bi-valved organisms. All the evidence is that mussels relatively rarely recovery from major marginal damage, but the fact that they can and do repair holes in the shell is important. Granted some of those are failed gastropod attack – but they may also be caused by crab pincers punching, bird beaks but also endolithic attack by bacteria and fungi – although the Kaehler paper is cited, more could be made of these sources of repairable damage which are potentially cumulatively more important than just dog whelks.
There seems to me to be a major paper missing. Yarra et al. Transcriptomic analysis of shell repair and biomineralization in the blue mussel, Mytilus edulis. BMC Genomics (2021) 22:437 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-021-07751-7
That paper deals with very similar artificial bore holes and looks at the molecular genetics of repair.
One thing which I do think is missing is a set of figures showing the microstructure of repair. A simple SEM study of the new shell would be invaluable. I am interested that they mussels apparently produced nacre straight off in the repair – this is not what the Yarra et al (2021) study found. Was there really no calcite?
Other comments:
Line 49: Spelling mistake – should ne ‘naticid’- though since naticids are soft substrate infaunal predators they almost never take mussels. Also since you use the term ‘bore’ elsewhere I would not muddle the ms by referring to it alternately.
Line 60: there is a difference here between incomplete and repaired bore holes. The former do not usually engender repair.
Line 62: The real risk is leakage of body fluids which attracts secondary predators or scavengers (see Vermeij 1983).
Line 67: ‘tabloid’ not really a known term in this field. Laminated layer composed of tablets?
Line 68: These aren’t calcite prisms in the sense usually implied (for example the blocky vertical prisms of pearl oysters etc) – mytilid (across the blue mussels) calcite prisms are quite distinct and it would be better to avoid it appearing that you had seen something different to quote the description of them (Checa et al 2014 Crystalline organization of the fibrous prismatic calcitic layer of the Mediterranean mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis. European Journal of Mineralogy 26: 495-505). Although I am an author of that paper and I do not wish to self promote it is important, particularly in a journal where the readers are not so engaged in shell microstructures, not to allow this ms to be used by readers to claim something different.
Line 87: make it clearer that repair is necessary following a whole raft of assaults on the shell and so much more important to the animal than merely failed gastropod predation.
Line 107: ‘Mytilid’ should not be in italics
Fig 1 – and associated text: to be clear – this is repair of drill holes? Not repair of other damage? Need to be explicit.
Line 144/5: italics
Line 155: usual to report in mm rather than cm – also Line 172, 200 and perhaps others
Line 156: ‘resecting’? Do you mean ‘dissecting’?
Line 186: I am not quite clear what the apex means in this context?
Line 242: how is that a measure of density?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript entitled “Mussels repair shell damage despite limitations imposed by ocean acidification” submitted by George et al. needs major improvements
Minor issues:
line 145 (among others): Mytilus edulis must be in italics, references included.
Line 678: idem for Liothyrella uva ......
line 556: the correct reference is: J. Fac. Sci. Hokkaido Univ. ser. IV, 19, 1-2, 37-74
Major issues:
- Many references about the repair of mollusk shells are not cited (ABOLINS-KROGIS, SALEUDDIN, CRANE et al., BEEDHAM, BLUNDON & VERMEIJ....) despite the fact that some are dedicated to Mytilus (Bubel 1973) or “biomimetics (KIJIMA, OAKI, IMAI...).
- On the opposite, many citations are not necessary, despite their high quality (Levi-kalisman et al., Marin et al., Halpern et al...). There is some inconsistencies between the lack of data about the composition (to say there is organic and mineral is not enough) and structures, and to cite papers dealing with these features in molluscs; moreover these papers are not dedicated to Mytilus and/or repair. They are not useful as material references.
- Data about the material present in the repaired region are missing: are the new deposits similar to the shell? What is their microstructure, mineralogy... It is only said that an organic film is first deposited.
From old papers, it is known that the microstructure and composition of repaired regions are irregular and dissimilar in different shells. Ct Scan images are not very useful. On the opposite, SEM images of the repaired regions are necessary.
Despite its interest, the manuscript does not deserve to be published in its present state.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised manuscript now deserved to be published, thanks to the major improvments in text and figures
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. Your comments were very helpful.
