Next Article in Journal
Morphological Description and Molecular Analysis of Newly Recorded Asteroid, Henricia djakonovi Chichvarkhin, 2017 (Asteroidea: Spinulosida: Echinasteridae), from Dokdo Island, Korea
Previous Article in Journal
A New Species of Proctoporus (Reptilia, Gymnophthalmidae, Cercosaurinae) from the Puna of the Otishi National Park in Peru
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Phylogenomic Analysis Supports the Transfer of 20 Pathovars from Xanthomonas campestris into Xanthomonas euvesicatoria

Taxonomy 2023, 3(1), 29-45; https://doi.org/10.3390/taxonomy3010003
by Jamie Harrison 1, Rana M. F. Hussain 2, Andrew Aspin 3, Murray R. Grant 2, Joana G. Vicente 3 and David J. Studholme 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3:
Taxonomy 2023, 3(1), 29-45; https://doi.org/10.3390/taxonomy3010003
Submission received: 30 November 2022 / Revised: 2 January 2023 / Accepted: 4 January 2023 / Published: 6 January 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript by Jamie Harrison and co-workers report a formal taxonomic revision of  20 pathovars from Xanthomonas campestris into Xanthomonas euvesicatoria. The importance of the species and host of the pathovars make it an interesting and important body of work. The work and report is strait forward keeping in mind the requirement for such type of work.

My only suggestion to the authors is to check the genome contamination and completeness using software like CheckM to make sure that they meet the necessary requirement.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the positive comments and for the excellent suggestion of checking the genome assemblies with CheckM. We now included the results of this in Table B1 (Appendix B) and cited the CheckM paper in the Methods section.

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript provides an extensive phylogenomic analysis of 20 pathovars of Xanthomonas campestris, and  based on whole-genome analysis, the authors propose to reclassify them into Xanthomonas euvesicatoriathe genus.

In my opinion, the manuscript is well done and accurate.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the positive comments. We note that no revisions were requested by this reviewer.

Reviewer 3 Report

I was convinced of the benefit of transferring the pathovars as proposed. I was also satisfied with the evidence presented and I believe it is relevant.

The only suggestion is to make small adjustments to the text. Ex. After the lumpinglumping together...(line 50).

Author Response

Thank you very much for the constructive comments. At the reviewer's suggestion, I have performed a careful proof-reading of the manuscript and corrected the typographic errors, including the aforementioned one at line 50.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed the comments. 

Back to TopTop