Metabolically Active Microbial Communities in Oilfields: A Systematic Review and Synthesis of RNA Preservation, Extraction, and Sequencing Methods
, Joyce da Cruz Ferraz Dutra 1, Mariana Santos Cardoso 2, Eduardo Almeida Costa 3, Vinicius de Abreu Waldow 4, Claudia Julia Groposo 5, Rubens Nobumoto Akamine 4, Maira Paula de Sousa 4, Henrique Figueiredo 6, Vasco Ariston de Carvalho Azevedo 7 and Aristóteles Góes-Neto 7,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
the current study discussed the metbolic activtiy in the oil field which really important for theoil field . they did a comperhensive summary from various studies that are crucial in the field of study.
Author Response
We have appreciated the reviewer's very positive feedback! Thank you very much!
Reviewer 2 Report
the paper appears to be of broad interest given the current challenges and difficulties in this field, the reviewer found the paper to be well done and without major errors to be corrected, however the reviewer advises the authors to lighten the introduction and highlight the authors' opinion on what are the best approaches in the conclusions
a moderate revision of English is required
Author Response
We appreciate the reviewer's positive feedback. We considered your suggestion to improve the introduction and to emphasize our opinions in the conclusions to enhance the article (Please see Lines 69-70; 78-82; 108 in the Introduction section; and Lines 694-709 in the Conclusions section in the revised version of our article).
Reviewer 3 Report
Here the authors reviewed the main methods used to preserve, isolate, and sequence RNA from oilfield samples, and describes the most abundant metabolically active genera. Using the MEDLINE/PubMed, PubMed Central, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, potentially eligible records were identified. The entire work is well presented with extensive literature review. The hard work of all the authors really proves to be an ultimate success for publication in such prestigious journal.
Comments:
1. It is better to revise the highlight the innovation of the work in the abstract.
2. The authors should rewrite the abstract and conclusion to emphasize the contribution and results of this paper. It is better to be more quantitative. The current form do not show the innovation of the work.
3. The authors should have more focus on the gap of the work from literature studies. The innovation of the paper needs to be explained more.
4. The authors just review the methods for lignocellulose based adsorbent preparation and give the advantages and disadvantageous for each of them.
5. The authors just review the mechanisms for water remediation using lignocellulose based adsorbent preparation, but it is better to investigate some of them for real cases and give examples for each mechanism.
6. Besides, it would be great if the authors add more information about the drawbacks of the utilized methods if any.
7. The authors may refere to the following articles may be suitable. Please refer and cite the following references: Asw. Univ. J. Environ. Stud. 4(1) (2023) 49-81. 10.21608/aujes.2023.178805.1110; Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. (Tehran) 19(8) (2022) 7019-7030.
8. There are few typographical errors here and there. Please avoid them.
There are few typographical errors here and there. Please avoid them.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors: Here the authors reviewed the main methods used to preserve, isolate, and sequence RNA from oilfield samples, and describes the most abundant metabolically active genera. Using the MEDLINE/PubMed, PubMed Central, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, potentially eligible records were identified. The entire work is well presented with extensive literature review. The hard work of all the authors really proves to be an ultimate success for publication in such prestigious journal.
Answer: Thanks!
Comments:
- It is better to revise the highlight the innovation of the work in the abstract.
Answer: We highlighted the innovation in the abstract as suggested (Please see Lines in Abstract section: 25;29-30; 43-48 in the revised version of our article).
- The authors should rewrite the abstract and conclusion to emphasize the contribution and results of this paper. It is better to be more quantitative. The current form do not show the innovation of the work.
Answer: We revised the abstract and conclusion to emphasize our paper's contribution and results in a more to better showcase the innovation (Please see Lines in Abstract section: 25;29-30; 43-48 in the revised version of our article).
- The authors should have more focus on the gap of the work from literature studies. The innovation of the paper needs to be explained more.
Answer: We worked on providing a clearer explanation of the innovation in our paper and emphasized the gap in the literature more effectively (Please see Lines 705-709 in the Conclusions section in the revised version of our article).
).
- The authors just review the methods for lignocellulose based adsorbent preparation and give the advantages and disadvantageous for each of them.
Answer: This feedback does not apply to our paper.
- The authors just review the mechanisms for water remediation using lignocellulose based adsorbent preparation, but it is better to investigate some of them for real cases and give examples for each mechanism.
Answer: This feedback does not apply to our paper.
- Besides, it would be great if the authors add more information about the drawbacks of the utilized methods if any.
Answer: We appreciated the suggestion. Our research is based on compiling and comprehensively analyzing information available in studies included in the systematic review, it was not possible to describe specific drawbacks of the methods. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the primary preservation methods are currently being evaluated in another study o four research group, which will be published soon. We look forward to sharing these results when they become available.
- The authors may refere to the following articles may be suitable. Please refer and cite the following references: Asw. Univ. J. Environ. Stud. 4(1) (2023) 49-81. 10.21608/aujes.2023.178805.1110; Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. (Tehran) 19(8) (2022) 7019-7030.
Answer: We reviewed the articles you mentioned and considered them, with proper citation (Please see Lines: 910-911 in the References section of our revised paper).
- There are few typographical errors here and there. Please avoid them.
Answer: We carefully reviewed and corrected the typographical errors to ensure the quality of the paper.
