All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Dear Authors,
The reviewer stated that your work meets all the requirements and can be published in the PeerJ journal. My congratulations!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Robert Winkler, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Authors are nicely revised the manuscript, this manuscript can be accepted for publications
The authors are revised the manuscript well and modifications are done as per the comments
manuscript can be accepted for publications
manuscript can be accepted for publication
Noble Authors,
Three Experts expressed their opinion about your work. Everyone appreciated its high quality and innovative research. However, all of them had comments. Please kindly read these comments and respond to them.
With best regards,
The paper is very well written and the statistic is properly done. There is only one comment that needs to be taken into account. I have noticed in several places that the Authors use the wrong way of unit presentation such as g/L. This way is incorrect, especially since in other cases another way is applied.
It is correct.
In my opinion, this paper is a very important one as algal cultivation has practical application in CO2 capture and production of many important products. There are hundreds of possibilities to use the biomass. Concerning mixotrophy, it is not a totally new idea but the paper contains critical discussion and introduction that will be useful for many researchers and companies. The information is also important concerning the necessity to develop consortia of algae with other microbes to avoid problems with pathogens.
1. Briefly explain what is the difference between PA,HT and MT cultivation system and pros and cons.
2. In the introductory part citation of latest references is required preferably last 5years including 2022.
3. some places authors used abbreviation, it is suggested to expand those abbreviations first and continue the abbreviation later in the text where ever required.
Line no: 159-162
Regarding acetate concentrations, authors mentioned they have used acetate ranges from 1-10g/l in the medium. is the same concentrations used for all trophic conditions(PA, HT, MT)? or they have used only 2g/l for HT condition?
it will give confusions to the readers, better clarification is required.
Table 1: update it with latest reports including 2022.
1.Figure captions and legend, reduce the word count, too lengthy captions are not looking nice for a figure. modification is required for all figure captions.
2. What is the reason behind variations in cell size during PA,HT & MT conditions with acetate, present discussion is not convinced. proper explanation is required
how chl is reducing or bleaching in HT, or chl molecule is changing to other molecule during heterotrophic system or other pigments are getting activated in HT, culture conditions. Include those point in line no 445-485.
Text is not fluid, check the grammatical and typological errors and English language need to be improved further.
The manuscript is well written, according with the jounral standards. It is well organized, structure is logic and coherent. Introduction fits to the main subject and justifies the problem undertaken. The cited literature is relevant to the scope of problem.
Graphical material clearly illustrates the experiment outcomes. I have found all of them necessary as they include results relevant to the hypotheses. Although the figures are readible, the overall quality (lines widths and fonts) needs improvement.
The manuscript is an interesting work on comparisons of cell culture parameters, and responses of cells over a gradient of mixotrophic, autotrophic and heterotrophic conditions for two species of green algae commonly used in biotechnology and for biofuels production. This is original primary research which falls in the scope of PeerJ journal. Reserch questions and problems have been clearly identified and justified.
Methods are described sufficiently to be replicated. Cultures and growth parameters of both algae species were examined according to the standards. Statistical methods (analysis of variance, mainly) seem enough to justify achieved differences. Resuls are properly documented.
The authors showed different parameters for estimating growth and biomass production under photoautotrophic, mixotrophic and heterotrophic growth conditions of Chlorella vulgaris and Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, which varied with a mode of energy supply. The results were a response to the formulated hypotheses. The results are statistically correct. The conclusions are relevant, supported by the results
It is a nice piece of work. Well organized and written.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.