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.
The authors addressed the pending comments and consequently, the manuscript is suitable for publication in this journal.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Konstantinos Kormas, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Three experts in this field assessed your manuscript and found the results sound and the methodology described in enough detail. However, some issues need to be addressed, particularly with the English usage. In addition, it is important to strengthen the importance of the study and the main conclusion.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should *only* be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
The authors present a paper describing 3 novel Talaromyces species from China. While the paper is overall fairly clear, the use of English can be improved in some sections. I would suggest that it is carefully proof read. I made some suggestions on the paper and below. Please pay particular attention to the formatting of the references as it is not consistent throughout the paper.
I would add a final concluding paragraph. Why is this important? What does it mean?
The experimental design is on par with what is expected with a multigene phylogeny supporting the novel species.
Describing a species based on a single strain is discouraged, especially as the phylogenetic placement is not consistent in all the trees. Please provide a strong motivation for describing a single strain species.
Additional notes:
Line 37-45: Reduce the length of the paragraph
Line 45: Rewrite: Section Talaromyces is the largest section and includes about 90 species.
Line 87-94: The sentence construction can be improved on. It is difficult to follow.
Line 102: How was the substitution model determined?
Line 129: Rather than referring to “outgroup position”, use “basal to the clade”
Line 129-130: Rewrite the sentence. Avoid starting a sentence with an adverb. Rather say: In the Rpb2 phylogram, it is basal to the clade consisting of T. aculeatus, T. echinulatus, T. francoae, T. bannicus, T. kendrickii, T. mangshanicus and T. penicillioides.
Line 135: The two strains from this study
Line 135-138: Split the sentence in two.
Line 272: Check the spelling of T. marnefeii,
Line 286-287: Split the sentence in two.
Line 288: Please look at the sentence construction.
Line 298-300: Split the sentence in two.
Line 310-313: Rewrite the sentence. The ITS region is unable to distinguish between T. funiformis and T. cavernicola, however, in the BenA, CaM, and Rpb2 phylograms they are unrelated.
Line :
In the study, three new species of sect. Talaromyces isolated from soil are proposed, namely, T. disparis (ex-type AS3.26221), T. funiformis (ex-type AS3.26220) and T. jianfengicus (ex-type AS3.26253), based on the polyphasic taxonomic approach. Authors also presented the morphological characters of these Talaromyces strains. The paper was interesting.
Methods described with sufficient detail.
Conclusions are well stated.
1. The importance and meaning of the study should be strengthened, especially in the Abstract and Introduction section.
2. There were a lot of fungi in the soil, however, authors only isolated five fungal strains from three soil samples. Authors should explain this. If only five fungal strains isolated, I probably guess many fungi were missing.
3. Some biologic activity trials are suggested since the study seems a little simple.
4. Language should be checked carefully by an English native editor.
No comment.
No comment.
The discussion needs further elaboration to make this article more comprehensive.
Overall, this manuscript is well-written, concise, and provides a straightforward explanation of the experiments, making it suitable for publication. However, I have some suggestions regarding the discussion section. The author should further elaborate on the significance of the genus Talaromyces in various aspects, such as its industrial applications and medical importance, particularly due to its ability to grow at 37 degrees Celsius. Comparing it with pathogenic fungi in humans and animals, such as the thermally dimorphic Talaromyces marneffei, would enhance the interest and depth of the discussion. I recommend the following open-access articles for further reference: https://www.mdpi.com/2309-608X/8/11/1183 and https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1192326/full.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should *only* be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
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.