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.
Thank you for addressing appropriately all the minor comments and suggestions of the reivewers. I consider that the manuscript can now be accepted for publication.
Both reviewers agree that this work is worthy of publication, but they also raised a number of relatively minor issues that I encourage you to follow to ameliorate the manuscript.
This work is on the report of a new species of Helicascus using various methods.
It can be considered for a further process after revision.
There are many things to be revised for a further process.
No comment
I think that traditional marine fungal species are different from those living in/on plants in seawater environments.
The marine fungal species in this work should be revised to indicate fungi living in/on plants in seawater environments.
Why did you use the synchrotron X-ray imaging in this work, not the non-synchrotron one?
Is the fungus a pathogen of Nypa palm?
Describe its implications with the plant in the Taxonomy.
Please revise the manuscript based on the follows:
95: Synchrotron --> synchrotron
111: Spell out CT
120: PCR reactions: redundancy
123: Macrogen (Seoul, South Korea).
94, 177: Which host tissues? Stem? How old?
Fig. 1A: ascoma --> ascomata; Add arrows to idicate ascomata.
Fig. 1B: arrowhead --> arrow
Fig. 1C: Add descriptions on sectioning to the M&M section.
Fig. 1E: X-ray CT image? arrowhead --> arrow; The arrow indicates only opening on the plant surface, not ostiole.
Fig. 1N: Add arrows to idicate pseudoparaphyses.
The manuscript is written in clear and professional English throughout with relevant literature references. However the authors can consider adding more recent literature references. The article structure, figures and tables are professional and raw data was shared.
This section was well done by the authors however more information is needed to explain how sampling was done and how the samples were transported to the laboratory. Were they contained in Ziploc bags or in a cooler box?
Line 84; Any processing of the sample done prior to examination under the microscope? This will help to improve this section.
Lines 85-87; More information on how the samples were processed before inoculation and incubation conditions to be provided to improve this section
Line 120; Primers used and PCR conditions should be provided
Generally the methods were described with sufficient details and information but need to be improved as stated above to allow replication.
All underlying data have been provided and well discussed.
Conclusions are well stated and linked to the research questions
I recommend the authors to have a complete thorough grammar-, spell-, and punctuation-check on the entire document
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.